[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick: is this what you were referring to?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > 
> > [snip]
> > > 
> > > > Anyway, at the time you wrote something like: yeah, he
> > > > said the same thing when he was in Fairfield.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, I think I've found on youtube what you were 
> > > > referring to.
> > > 
> > > No, Rick was tellling us what Obama had said in response
> > > to a question *he* asked Obama, not that Dennis Raimondi
> > > asked Obama.
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > Stop being so fucking anally retentive, Judy.
> > 
> > Reread what I wrote: "at the time you wrote SOMETHING LIKE..." 
> > 
> > When people are going on memory, as I obviously was, I wasn't QUOTING him; 
> > it was a general comment.
> > 
> > Take a fucking valium.
> 
> Have you been drinking? Because you're talking
> absolute nonsense. What I was commenting on was
> your asking if the Raimondi video was what Rick had
> been talking about. Obviously you'd forgotten


Then like the sweet little lady I know you can be you should have written that 
instead of acting like a shrill witch.



> that
> Rick had reported how Obama had answered *his*
> question, or you wouldn't have said you thought
> Rick had been referring to the Raimondi video.
> Didn't have anything to do with "something like."
> 
> This is all a crock anyway. You know it, I know it,
> everyone who reads your posts knows it. There's
> more than enough *legitimate* criticisms to be made
> of Obama; there's no need to make them up out of
> whole cloth.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rick: is this what you were referring to?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > About a year or so ago we had a discussion over Obama's
> > comments during his campaign to become the presidential
> > nominee of the Democratic Party in which he said that
> > once he was president that he'd overturn laws he deemed 
> > unconstitutional (a big gaffe because any high school
> > student can tell you that presidents can't do that; only
> > the courts can).
> 
> We've been through this before, Shemp. You haven't got
> a leg to stand on with this.
> 


Not if you're going to rewrite the English language, Judy.



> Here's what he was quoted as saying:
> 
> "I would call my attorney general in and review every 
> single executive order issued by George Bush and
> overturn those laws--or executive decisions that I feel
> violate the constitution."
> 
> "Laws" was obviously a slip of the tongue, which he
> instantly corrected. He was talking about reviewing
> executive orders, which *can* be reversed by the
> president.
> 



"Laws" may very well have been a slip of the tongue, Judy, as we discussed a 
hundred times, but saying right after it "or executive decisions" is NOT I 
repeat NOT "instantly correcting" it, as you well know.

"Instantly correcting" it would have been saying something to the effect "I 
meant to say 'executive orders' " which he did NOT say.

The English language is the English language.  Give Obama a little respect for 
knowing the English language.




> > Anyway, at the time you wrote something like: yeah, he
> > said the same thing when he was in Fairfield.
> > 
> > Well, I think I've found on youtube what you were 
> > referring to.
> 
> No, Rick was tellling us what Obama had said in response
> to a question *he* asked Obama, not that Dennis Raimondi
> asked Obama.
> 
> > Although he doesn't say it as explicity as the gaffe he
> > made in Denver,
> 
> It wasn't even a gaffe.
> 



Huh?

Just above you said it was a "slip of the tongue".  Is not a slip of the tongue 
a "gaffe"?



> > you can sort of interpret it as the same
> > thing (the discussion starts at about 2:20):
> 
> No, you can't "sort of interpret it" as saying he 
> himself was going to repeal laws, sorry.
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlPzmyX6sOc
> > 
> > Is this what you were referring to?
> 
> Here's what Rick said:
> 
> "That's almost verbatim the answer he gave to me in
> Fairfield when I asked him about impeaching Bush/
> Cheney and repairing the constitutional damage they
> had done."
> 



If that's the case, then Obama would have said -- almost verbatim -- that he 
would reverse laws or executive decisions.

Please don't reinterpret the English language, Judy.






> And here's Rick's original account of what he asked
> Obama in Fairfield:
> 
> "When Obama was in FF, I asked him about impeaching
> Bush and Cheney. He said he felt it would be too
> disruptive – that Congress wouldn't get anything
> else accomplished – but he said that if elected, one
> of his first moves would be to have his attorney
> general review everything Bush and Cheney had done
> to erode the Constitution, and that he would reverse
> those decisions so as to repair the damage."
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Anonymous leeches can't bet with humans

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Off, I recommend that you keep posting furiously so that you hit 51, and then 
> go on hiatus, and when you return maybe everyone will have forgotten who it 
> was that conceded.
> 


Conceding?  Did Off concede?

Well, that's awfully nice of him.

He can contact me off-board in order to know where to send the $50,000 which 
I'll accept as certified check or money order.

I was going to offer him that if he concedes at any point between now and 6 
months from now that I would, out of the generosity of my heart, only hold him 
liable for $273.97 for each day since the start of the bet on the 19th because 
that's the figure that comes out when you divide $50,000 by 182.5 days (6 
months in days).  that works out to be $821.91 for the three days.

But I much prefer to accept the $50,000!

Thanks, Off!  I'm going to enjoy that sailboat!



> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Where I come from, when one issues a challenge, and then backs down
> > from it, they're yella.>
> > 
> > So you are saying that Shemp has a huge yellow slimy streak down his
> > back are you?
> > 
> > Well, that's a bit harsh on your part, but its hard to argue with your
> > assesment there.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Shelly Hack

[ShempMcGurk]

Shelly Hack was for one season one of Charlie's Angels on TV.

She was also in Martin Scorcese's "King of Comedy".

I seem to remember from the '70s that someone said Hack was a TM teacher.  Am I 
remembering this correctly?  Does anyone else remember this?

[FairfieldLife] Rick: is this what you were referring to?

[ShempMcGurk]

About a year or so ago we had a discussion over Obama's comments during his 
campaign to become the presidential nominee of the Democratic Party in which he 
said that once he was president that he'd overturn laws he deemed 
unconstitutional (a big gaffe because any high school student can tell you that 
presidents can't do that; only the courts can).

Anyway, at the time you wrote something like: yeah, he said the same thing when 
he was in Fairfield.

Well, I think I've found on youtube what you were referring to. Although he 
doesn't say it as explicity as the gaffe he made in Denver, you can sort of 
interpret it as the same thing (the discussion starts at about 2:20):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlPzmyX6sOc

Is this what you were referring to?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Bush speechwriter David Frum: This is GOP’s Waterloo

[ShempMcGurk]

Canadians reading this forum will know that David Frum's mother, the late 
Barbara Frum, was considered the Edward R. Murrow or, perhaps, the Walter 
Cronkite of Canadian Television News.  She was untouchable as a journalist and 
anchored the CBC Evening News for years.

Frum once interviewed Maharishi.  It was the ONLY interview I have EVER seen of 
him before or since that was done with such incredibly well-done research...and 
done with such intelligence.  If you read the transcript you would have thought 
that a TM teacher had prepared the questions.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine  wrote:
>
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:59 PM, do.rflex wrote:
> 
> My favorite part:
> 
> > No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans 
> > scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster 
> > to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription 
> > drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they 
> > discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds 
> > from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – 
> > would President Obama sign such a repeal?
> 
> So he's saying, in effect, that the bill is a disaster
> because seniors *can't* be overcharged for their
> medicine, insurers can no longer rescind policies,
> and young adults can no longer be kicked off of 
> their parents' policies, which before left many
> uninsured.  That's what he considers a disaster.
> What a schmuck.
> 
> > We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they 
> > led us to abject and irreversible defeat.
> 
> And let's hope the party of perversion goes
> the same way--quickly.
> 
> Sal
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The health care meltdown

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> off_world_beings wrote:
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
> >   
> >> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> It looks like we voted for the right man for the job when we voted
> >>> for Obama. Super-big high-five to the O-man.
> >>>
> >>> Ted Kennedy's smiling down on us all.
> >>>   
> >> Ted Kennedy is royally pissed because Obama sacrificed
> >> the public option (while pretending to still be for it).>>
> >> 
> >
> > It is WAY better than any Public Option. It insures millions more, and
> > in time will cover anyone currently not covered. It is now illegal for
> > people to not have coverage, but just like in the past, the Democrats
> > made it illegal for hospitals to refuse someone, and so local, state,
> > and federal funding HAD to cover the treatment costs. As it should be.
> > NOW everyone who is not insured has to have insurance, but THEY do not
> > have to pay a penny if they cannot afford it - it is subsidized by the
> > tax payers now.
> >
> > Those who can afford it, but do not want health insurance of any kind
> > (like Willyltex for example, if he was ever self-employed), it will
> > simply be like a tiny insignificant tax on them that they won't even
> > notice, and they will have to put up or shut up, just like in Britain.
> > And the British like their system, and the health insurance tax (which
> > is seperated out on payroll checks) is the LAST thing they would
> > complain about on their paycheck deductions.
> >
> > I saw this is what Obama was doing a long time ago, and these rules will
> > never be repealed, even if Republicans gain in the Fall --- which they
> > won't.
> >
> > This is a GREAT day for America. This is a watershed moment for America,
> > and due to its influence, for the world. The Neocons and Fundies are
> > dead in the water. Change has come.
> >
> > OffWorld
> 
> I think health insurance should be like car insurance: if you use 
> alternative and preventative medicine to keep yourself healthy you 
> should get a tremendous break on your bill.  You get one for being a 
> safe driver on auto insurance so why not health insurance?



In one sense insurance companies already do that; in another sense, they don't.

If you have a group insurance policy through work, you'll pay the same rate as 
everyone else in your demographic group (age and gender) whether you are sick 
as a dog or as healthy as Superman.

If you have an individual policy you can not only be rated but have certain 
pre-existing conditions excluded from coverage.  And you can be declined for 
coverage.  You can't be declined under a group policy (although there may be 
waiting periods for pre-existing conditions).

Life insurance of course rates people and declines them as well.




>  The problem 
> would be the way the dumbed down way health insurance companies measure 
> things.  But the health insurance companies are crooks anyway and need 
> to be regulated out of business or just provide "premium care" for the 
> elite.
> 
> And we need to get the AMA out formula too.




That point, for me, is the biggest bone of contention I have about the whole 
thing.

For all their talk about free markets, I never hear much from the conservative 
side about breaking the AMA monopoly.

And this should be something of concern for the kinds of folks that read FFL 
because, I assume, we've all tried various forms of alternative medicines, 
including Ayur-Veda.  Well, for starters, let's let other "associations" 
provide rules for western medicine as well as the AMA (which can control supply 
of doctors) as well as putting alternative medicines and practitioners on a par 
with those licensed under the AMA.








>  Let's help people who may 
> not come from a line of doctors become one if they are interested.  
> Groups like the AMA lobby to keep the entrants into medical schools down 
> so the cost of medicine is high.


Precisely! (I actually wrote what I did above before I read this by Bhairitu).

Bhairitu, you are talking like a true free-marketer!

You should go to the Ludwig Von Mises site; they've got great articles on the 
AMA monopoly.

>  Let's expose this fraud.   There are 
> all kinds of things that could be done to reduce the cost of health 
> care.  But dummies with health care benefits from work run to the doctor 
> if they even have the sniffles.   People need to learn that is not what 
> it is for.
>

...and now you're sounding like Rush Limbaugh (I mean that as a complement) 
because he talks a lot about how health insurance should NOT be paying for 
doctor's visits and all that but for catastrophic coverage.

By the way, there are many in the insurance industry that want to see high 
deductible insurance policies made available but, apparently, the government 
makes it difficult for such policies to come into existance.  I'm not up on it 
enough to kno

[FairfieldLife] Climate gold

[ShempMcGurk]

1. UK warmists now scaring kids: 'Government has been reduced to
rallying support for its reviled global warming schemes by scaring kids'

2. Claim: Climate Change battle has been won -- 'It is unlikely that
the U.S. will now implement any drastic program to manage CO2'

3. Study: 'Swirling winds' caused record breaking loss of ice in
Arctic -- not global warming

4. Meteorology Professor slaps down latest Arctic Scare book with
foreword by Al Gore

5. Climate Astrology: Flowers losing scent due to global warming:
'Scents in flowers last longer in colder climate as plants can hold on
to their essential oils longer'

6. Physicist Bob Park seems to be losing his religion: Now asks: 'Is
Earth's climate determined entirely by the Sun, or is there a component
of anthropogenic warming?'

7. Butterflies freeze in Mexico; CO2 blamed: 'Monarch Butterflies
Dwindle Due to Harsh Winter Weather'

8. End-phase of the Climate Wars? 'All 3 warmings since 1860 (and
MWP) could have exceeded the bounds of natural variability if all were
forced by the same external influence'

9. More than 20 wind farms operating at less than one-fifth full
power 'because it's not breezy enough'

   10. Counter: 'One single map that refutes this entire [warming
violence] theory...highest crime rates seem to be in relatively cool
countries'

   11. 'How government cash created the Climategate scandal...Global
warming science corrupted by politics and money'

   12. 'Irefutable' Study: Global warming can lead to increased violence
in human beings -- My study is 'very well researched' claims Psychology
Prof. Craig Anderson (c...@iastate.edu)

   13. Greenies Ask: 'Why aren't climate scientists talking about
healthcare reform?'

   14. WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees: 'Carbon credits
scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering
of overall CO2 emissions'

   15. NASA Scientist's Admissions: We don't currently understand cloud
feedbacks; we can't separate man-made from natural climate variations

   16. Flashback April 2009: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify
Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing
<../../a/429/Flashback-April-2009-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-T\
estify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing>
   17. Flashback: Gore: U.S. Climate Bill Will Help Bring About 'Global
Governance'
<../../a/1893/Flashback-Gore-US-Climate-Bill-Will-Help-Bring-About-Globa\
l-Governance>
   18. Read All About it! Climate Depot Exclusive - Continuously Updated
'ClimateGate' News Round Up
<../../a/3943/Read-All-About-it-Climate-Depot-Exclusive--Continuously-Up\
dated-ClimateGate-News-Round-Up>
   19. Watch Now: Climate Depot's Morano on Fox News talking Climategate,
UN and latest science
<../../a/4401/Watch-Now-Climate-Depots-Morano-on-Fox-News-talking-Climat\
egate-UN-and-latest-science>
   20. Sec. Chu's assertions 'quite simply being proven wrong by the
latest climate data'
<../../a/327/Sec-Chus-assertionsnbspquite-simply-being-proven-wrong-by-t\
he-latest-climate-data>
   21. 'Execute' Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: 'At what point do we
jail or execute global warming deniers' -- 'Shouldn't we start punishing
them now?'
<../../a/1096/Execute-Skeptics-Shock-Call-To-Action-At-what-point-do-we-\
jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers--Shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them\
-now>
   22. Climate Depot Aims To Redefine Global Warming Reporting
<../../a/40/Climate-Depot-Aims-To-Redefine-Global-Warming-Reporting>
   23. Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F
since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'
<../../a/1799/Earths-Fe

[FairfieldLife] 3 down, 179 to go....

[ShempMcGurk]

We're three days into the $50,000 6-month bet between Off_World and Shemp and 
-- surprise, surprise! -- Ron Paul still hasn't come out with the statement on 
global warming that Off predicted he would.

I am still waiting for Off to provide me with the name, address, and phone 
number of a LEGITIMATE attorney so that I can provide him with my I.D. etc.

Funnily enough -- but, of course, not very surprising -- Off provided a phony 
name and address of a NON-attorney for me to contact in another state!  First 
he asks me to give my information to his attorney and when I asked him where to 
send the info, he comes up with the false name and stuff.

What's with this guy?  Is he having yet another of his famous psychotic 
episodes?

Off, please come clean.

[FairfieldLife] "Made in Britain" and "My son the fanatic"

[ShempMcGurk]

"Made in Britain" is a 1982 made-for-British-TV movie that stars Tim Roth as 
"Trevor", a 16 year old-ish skinhead who is in constant trouble with the law.

I had, wrongly, assumed that Roth's role as "Myron" in the excellent "The Hit" 
in 1984 was his breakthrough star turn. How wrong I was.  His "Trevor" in "Made 
in Britain" is a tour-de-force and is what lead to every door opening in the 
industry for him.  It's on par with, say, Ben Kingsley's performance as "Don" 
in "Sexy Beast", a role that just speaks raw energy.

The most frightening thing about Tim Roth's portrayal of "Trevor" are the 
little speeches and rants he gives throughout the movie about his philosophy of 
racism.  Frightening because through sheer will he starts to convince you that 
maybe -- just maybe -- there is some logic or rational behind his hate.  A sign 
of great screenwriting combined with an actor that can deliver the goods is 
what makes this a great picture.

"My son the fanatic" is a British movie that, in a sense, parallels "Mona 
Lisa".  Both main protagonists are drivers of hookers.  In this one, the Indian 
actor Om Puri plays a Muslim taxi driver in Northern England who becomes close 
to a hooker who he ends up protecting and loving.  But he's got a wife and 
young adult son at home, a son who has abandoned his beautiful English 
girlfriend for the fanaticism of Islam.  Yet his father is a lover of life and 
people who can't stomach religious fanaticism.  The movie show how the father 
deals with the son and demonstrates who, truly, is God-like and is respectful 
of all people.

I've probably seen Om Puri in bit parts in movies through the years but here he 
gives the performance of a lifetime: natural and convincing about a man of 
conviction who came to Britain from Pakistan to better his life and that of his 
family only to see his only child revert back to the nutcases he left Pakistan 
to get away from.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Where's Waldo? I mean, where's Off_World?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > He seems to have disappeared.
> > 
> > Gee, I wonder why?
> 
> Shemp, I think a more realisic (and interesting) bet would be a wager whereby 
> if you lose, you reveal your true identity, and if Off (Tom Barlow, from 
> Vermont) loses, that he pay you $500.00.
> 



No, I prefer the $50,000 bet we agreed upon.

Let him put his money where his mouth is.

I would be silly to give up an easy $50,000 and I am NOT going to let him off 
the hook.

By the way, the clock is ticking. It's now 2 days (see the March 19, 2010 bet 
on message #244049) into the 183 days that Off has until Ron Paul comes out 
with his public statement on Global Warming.

I've got my eye on a really nice sailboat!

By the way, if you're over 59 1/2, Off, there is no 10% penalty for taking the 
funds out of your 401K or I.R.A.  I suggest that is what you do.

> 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll need your name and a permanent address, and you'll need to sign
> > > > > > some papers from my lawyer before you can make this bet, since an
> > > > > > anonymous person is not a person, but a parasite, and no-one has
> > > > ever
> > > > > > made a bet with a parasite. Parasites cannot make bets. Its not
> > > > > > possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please post your name and reliable address, town and country of
> > > > birth.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your lawyer will get ALL of that information, along with a copy of my
> > > > passport, driver's license, etc.  >>
> > > > 
> > > > So put up your name then coward, or you'll just be ignored.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I am more than happy to put it forward to your attorney.
> > > 
> > > Why should I put it up here?  It has absolutely nothing to do with the 
> > > bet!
> > > 
> > > Methinks you are using this as an excuse to get out of the bet because:
> > > 
> > > 1) You're a wimp;
> > > 
> > > 2) You know you'd lose;
> > > 
> > > 3) You're a coward;
> > > 
> > > 4) You're a welcher.
> > > 
> > > Aren't you a man of your word?
> > > 
> > > Aren't you a man of your convictions?
> > > 
> > > Again, please email me with the name, address, and phone number of your 
> > > attorney and let's get this bet going!
> > > 
> > > Did you by any chance want to increase the stakes to, say, $100,000?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > No-one talks
> > > > to parasites, and it is impossible for a leech to make a bet. Everyone
> > > > knows this.
> > > > 
> > > > You already lostagain. You are not smart enough Shemp.
> > > > 
> > > > PS. I'm not a Christian.
> > > > 
> > > > OffWorld
> > > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Quite right.
> > > 
> > > Christians aren't supposed to welch on bets.
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Anonymous leeches can't bet with humans ------- Was////The bet is on:

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , off_world_beings 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'll need your name and a permanent address, and you'll need to
> sign
> > > > > some papers from my lawyer before you can make this bet, since
> an
> > > > > anonymous person is not a person, but a parasite, and no-one has
> > > ever
> > > > > made a bet with a parasite. Parasites cannot make bets. Its not
> > > > > possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please post your name and reliable address, town and country of
> > > birth.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your lawyer will get ALL of that information, along with a copy of
> my
> > > passport, driver's license, etc.  >>
> > >
> > > So put up your name then coward, or you'll just be ignored.
> >
> 
> No-one talks to parasites, and it is impossible for a leech to make a
> bet. Everyone knows this.
> 
> You already lostagain. You are not smart enough Shemp.
> 
> Send your information to:
> 
> Brian Schumaker
> Colby Sound Building, Suite 1350
> Providence, Rhode Island 2902
> 
> OffWorld
>


1) Please provide a proper address.  Zip codes in the United States have a 
minimum of 5 digits, not 4 as you have above.

2) I went to the Rhode Island Bar Association web site and there is no listing 
for an attorney named Brian Schumaker:

https://www.ribar.com/Members/Directory/Default.aspx

What kind of scam are you trying to pull? It was YOU who brought up the idea of 
forwarding my personal information to YOUR attorney; I agreed.  And now this: a 
non-existent attorney in a state hundreds of miles away from where you live in 
northern Vermont.

Don't you have a attorney in the state where you actually LIVE  Again, for 
the third time, what is the name, phone number, and address of your attoreny, 
please. Do you not have a LEGITIMATE attorney?

Please don't play head games with me and waste my time.

3) You didn't tell me whether you were willing to up the bet to $100,000.

[FairfieldLife] Where's Waldo? I mean, where's Off_World?

[ShempMcGurk]

He seems to have disappeared.

Gee, I wonder why?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll need your name and a permanent address, and you'll need to sign
> > > > some papers from my lawyer before you can make this bet, since an
> > > > anonymous person is not a person, but a parasite, and no-one has
> > ever
> > > > made a bet with a parasite. Parasites cannot make bets. Its not
> > > > possible.
> > > >
> > > > Please post your name and reliable address, town and country of
> > birth.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your lawyer will get ALL of that information, along with a copy of my
> > passport, driver's license, etc.  >>
> > 
> > So put up your name then coward, or you'll just be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am more than happy to put it forward to your attorney.
> 
> Why should I put it up here?  It has absolutely nothing to do with the bet!
> 
> Methinks you are using this as an excuse to get out of the bet because:
> 
> 1) You're a wimp;
> 
> 2) You know you'd lose;
> 
> 3) You're a coward;
> 
> 4) You're a welcher.
> 
> Aren't you a man of your word?
> 
> Aren't you a man of your convictions?
> 
> Again, please email me with the name, address, and phone number of your 
> attorney and let's get this bet going!
> 
> Did you by any chance want to increase the stakes to, say, $100,000?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > No-one talks
> > to parasites, and it is impossible for a leech to make a bet. Everyone
> > knows this.
> > 
> > You already lostagain. You are not smart enough Shemp.
> > 
> > PS. I'm not a Christian.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
> 
> 
> Quite right.
> 
> Christians aren't supposed to welch on bets.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Anonymous leeches can't bet with humans ------- Was////The bet is on:

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll need your name and a permanent address, and you'll need to sign
> > > some papers from my lawyer before you can make this bet, since an
> > > anonymous person is not a person, but a parasite, and no-one has
> ever
> > > made a bet with a parasite. Parasites cannot make bets. Its not
> > > possible.
> > >
> > > Please post your name and reliable address, town and country of
> birth.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Your lawyer will get ALL of that information, along with a copy of my
> passport, driver's license, etc.  >>
> 
> So put up your name then coward, or you'll just be ignored.




I am more than happy to put it forward to your attorney.

Why should I put it up here?  It has absolutely nothing to do with the bet!

Methinks you are using this as an excuse to get out of the bet because:

1) You're a wimp;

2) You know you'd lose;

3) You're a coward;

4) You're a welcher.

Aren't you a man of your word?

Aren't you a man of your convictions?

Again, please email me with the name, address, and phone number of your 
attorney and let's get this bet going!

Did you by any chance want to increase the stakes to, say, $100,000?




> No-one talks
> to parasites, and it is impossible for a leech to make a bet. Everyone
> knows this.
> 
> You already lostagain. You are not smart enough Shemp.
> 
> PS. I'm not a Christian.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Quite right.

Christians aren't supposed to welch on bets.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Earthquake shakes Cuba -- Is there something afoot?

[ShempMcGurk]

The thing I found fascinating about Guantanamo Bay is that is ajuts the town of 
Guantanamo which is in Cuba proper.  

Did you know that since the Cuban revolution people from the Cuban side pass 
into the U.S. miltary side to work?  I found this incredible when I heard 
it...and indeed up until I heard this story about three years ago there are 
still about 3 or 4 Cubans still alive who come to work for the Americans.  I 
assume this is part of the treaty or else Castro wouldn't allow it.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Yup, near Gitmo.  God is angry.  ;-)
> 
> 
> It's just a ride wrote:
> > http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/03/20/cuba.earthquake/index.html?hpt=T2
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone has done a statistical analysis on the number and
> > amount of earthquakes in the last few months versus other times.  Seems
> > there's another earthquake every time I check the news.
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times

[ShempMcGurk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Xl0Qry-hA





.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Anonymous leeches can't bet with humans ------- Was////The bet is on:

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> I'll need your name and a permanent address, and you'll need to sign
> some papers from my lawyer before you can make this bet, since an
> anonymous person is not a person, but a parasite, and no-one has ever
> made a bet with a parasite. Parasites cannot make bets. Its not
> possible.
> 
> Please post your name and reliable address, town and country of birth.
> 



Your lawyer will get ALL of that information, along with a copy of my passport, 
driver's license, etc.  Everything he needs to know who I am.


> That way people can treat you as a human who is then capapble of making
> a bet.



I quite agree.  That is a very reasonable request.

So, once again I ask you: who are your lawyers, what is their address, and what 
is their phone number so that I may contact them.





> As of now, you are just an anonymous leech, sucking cyber-blood
> on the internet.
> 



Oh, you mean like YOUR Christian Name of "Off_World"?

Well, we all know your REAL name because during one of your psychotic episodes 
of a few years back you blurted it out because you were under the delusion that 
new.morning was insulting your ex-wife. 

You remember that episode, don't you, Off?

But I am not going to mention your real name here because, as you requested of 
me in your September 12, 2009 email to me, you are afraid if I post your real 
name that it will have a negative effect on your business because prospective 
clients will get these wacky postings of yours from FFL if they do a Google 
search on you.

So your description of me as "ananonymous leech, sucking cyber-blood
on the internet" is curious to say the least, seeing as you go under the name 
of "Off_World" and not your real name.




> Let me know when you become human, then you would be considred credible
> enough to make a bet.
> 



...again, supply me with the name, address, and phone number of your attorney 
and I will be more than happy to comply.

And if you feel uncomfortable posting that information on FFL, please feel free 
to email it to me.

You know the address.

Thank you...and I'm looking forward to the 6 month bet...and, in the spirit of 
gamesmanship, the outcome of the $50,000 prize.

Care to up the amount?




> OffWorld
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I REALLY hope that RP will be the next Republican candidate.
> He'll
> > > be
> > > > > awesome, but he will be too busy agreeing with Obama on
> everything,
> > > to
> > > > > be able to win.
> > > > >
> > > > > OFF-WORLD PREDICTION:   YOU will hear Ron Paul in an interview
> in
> > > the
> > > > > next 6 months saying that something needs to be done about the
> > > danger of
> > > > > Climate Change.
> > > > >
> > > > > Make a date. Put it in your diary. You WILL hear it right here,
> > > within 6
> > > > > months.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you a betting man?
> > > >
> > > > We could send the money to Rick Archer to hold.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know...
> > >
> > > Name your price?
> > >
> >
> >
> > $50,000.00.
> >
> > Who is your lawyer and at what phone number and address may I contact
> him?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > My lawyer will issue you some papers to sign to make sure you don't
> try
> > > to get out of it, since I don't trust you.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry: what can you tell us of Europe's reaction to Amanda Knox?

[ShempMcGurk]

There are several HuffingtonPost stories on Amanda that have very lively 
comments sections.  This is where I was challenged when I made my naive "she's 
innocent" comment. 

Here a link to one of the most lifely ones (again, read the comments sections):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/13/amanda-knox-jail-intervie_n_390274.html

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> 
> What have you found Shemp?  I know a little about this crazy Italian 
> prosecutor (under indictment in other cases for misconduct and abuse of 
> power)  from the book The Monster of Florence where he tried to run this 
> whole satanic cult routine on an American journalist who was writing a book 
> about a serial killer.  That story was so parallel to what happened to Amanda 
> that I'm still in the innocent camp.
> 
> They have a ton of real forensic evidence on the guy they convicted first.  
> What makes you think there is more to the story than the one guy with a rape 
> motive who was not friends with Amanda doing the crime?  And she would have 
> to be really in cahoots with him because she mistakenly fingered another guy 
> during the prolonged interrogation. An obviously innocent guy.  A desperate 
> move of a terrified girl. So she would have to be willing to go to jail 
> rather than give the guy up.  Why?  He fled  the country and Amanda and 
> boyfriend stuck around and phoned in the crime.  Then the guy they first 
> convicted got caught and brought back to Italy doesn't immediately give up 
> Amanda or the boyfriend either.  He holds out until they give him a deal 
> specifically for saying they were involved later.
> 
> And comparing the family "inflaming" the American public to the inflaming 
> articles in Italy with a non sequestered jury seems a bit much. A charge that 
> the parents manipulated the media seems far fetched, it makes just as good a 
> story either way. The judge basically said there was no motive.  She just 
> happened to get together with a drifter criminal and due to the consumption 
> of  stupefacente (refer madness)commit bloody murder? It was a total Helter 
> Skelter scene with such a small amount of trace of Amanda and boyfriend that 
> the it was destroyed by the prosecutor's testing so the defense couldn't have 
> it independently tested.
> 
> 
> I would love to have my perspective rocked on this, where should I go, what 
> blogs?
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > The following is from amazon.com's product description of the book "Angel 
> > Face: the true story of student killer Amanda Knox":
> > 
> > " Despite all the airtime devoted to Amanda Knox, it's still hard to 
> > reconcile the fresh-faced honor student from Seattle with the sexually 
> > rapacious killer convicted of the November 2007 murder of her British 
> > roommate. Few Americans have heard all of the powerful evidence that 
> > convinced a jury that Knox was one of three people to sexually assault 
> > Meredith Kercher, brutalize her body, and cut her throat. In Angel Face, 
> > Rome-based Daily Beast senior writer Barbie Latza Nadeau – who cultivated 
> > personal relationships with the key figures in both the prosecution and the 
> > defense – describes how the Knox family's heavy-handed efforts to control 
> > media coverage distorted the facts, inflamed an American audience, and 
> > painted an offensive, inaccurate picture of Italy's justice system. An 
> > eye-opener for any parent considering sending a child away to study, Angel 
> > Face reveals what really went on in this incomprehensible crime."
> > 
> > I certainly was hoodwinked by several American news magazine stories (like 
> > 20/20 and Dateline) into believing that Knox was innocent.  But after 
> > reading several blogs to the contrary, I believe she's quite guilty.
> > 
> > Barry, are you aware of this case and, if so, can you give us Europe's 
> > reaction to it?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] The bet is on: $50,000.00!

[ShempMcGurk]

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



[snip]



> >
> > > I REALLY hope that RP will be the next Republican candidate. He'll
> be
> > > awesome, but he will be too busy agreeing with Obama on everything,
> to
> > > be able to win.
> > >
> > > OFF-WORLD PREDICTION:   YOU will hear Ron Paul in an interview in
> the
> > > next 6 months saying that something needs to be done about the
> danger of
> > > Climate Change.
> > >
> > > Make a date. Put it in your diary. You WILL hear it right here,
> within 6
> > > months.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Are you a betting man?
> >
> > We could send the money to Rick Archer to hold.
> >
> > Let me know...
> 
> Name your price?
> 


$50,000.00.

Who is your lawyer and at what phone number and address may I contact him?




> My lawyer will issue you some papers to sign to make sure you don't try
> to get out of it, since I don't trust you.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry: what can you tell us of Europe's reaction to Amanda Knox?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't know who Amanda Knox is and don't care. 
> > > 
> > > Most Europeans I know wouldn't know or care, either.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > Interesting.
> > 
> > Most media accounts I've read or seen here specifically said that the 
> > Amanda Knox case was gripping all of Europe.
> > 
> > Anther thing they got wrong, I suppose.
> >
> 
> 
> It was a big deal here,




Where is "here"?



> it had all the ingredients for a 
> juicy story. Sex, drugs, murder, innocents abroad, allegedly 
> incompetent/corrupt police.
> 
> Endless speculation in the press divided along editors ethical
> lines, was she fitted up or is she a cold-blooded killer?
> 
> General consensus among the lefty press is that they found
> her guilty to save face in the police dept even though there
> wasn't any real evidence and she'll be freed on appeal. The 
> right wing press consider her spawn of the devil and guilty 
> as charged. The rest of us wil probably never know.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > > To be honest, if you had asked me this question a week
> > > ago, I would have said that I simply don't understand
> > > Americans' fascination with media-fueled "crime stories."
> > > 
> > > But now I've been stuck in my hotel room for extended
> > > periods of time waiting for conference calls with only
> > > my TV and remote control to amuse me, and I understand
> > > better. The programming on American TV is so bad that
> > > the crime stories on the news are often more entertain-
> > > ing. :-)
> > > 
> > > The worst so far is "Bad Girls Club," which seems to 
> > > be what they call a "reality show" in which they pit
> > > seven or eight megabitches against each other for
> > > several days to see who can dirty-trick the others
> > > out of the running for Big Bitch. Horrific.
> > > 
> > > I must admit to not having discovered anything I wasn't
> > > watching already that I feel like continuing to watch.
> > > I did watch a few more old episodes of "Bones," and
> > > have come to like Zooey Deschanel's sister Emily. Not
> > > enough to keep watching the series, but she seems to
> > > be a better actress than Zooey. And they could easily
> > > both be TM meditators, so that may even reduces my 
> > > "anti-TM quotient."
> > > 
> > > Since my friends here can't get together with me until
> > > 10:00 tonight, I'm looking forward to watching the
> > > resuming series "Fastforward" to see whether they'll be
> > > able to come up with anything interesting.
> > > 
> > > But I haven't been able to make it through more than 2
> > > or 3 minutes of *any* news show. Enough to realize that
> > > FOX is even more over-the-top than I thought it was, and
> > > that sadly most of the others aren't that far behind. So
> > > I'm really not the person to ask about some news story
> > > personality.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The following is from amazon.com's product description of the book 
> > > > "Angel Face: the true story of student killer Amanda Knox":
> > > > 
> > > > " Despite all the airtime devoted to Amanda Knox, it's still hard to 
> > > > reconcile the fresh-faced honor student from Seattle with the sexually 
> > > > rapacious killer convicted of the November 2007 murder of her British 
> > > > roommate. Few Americans have heard all of the powerful evidence that 
> > > > convinced a jury that Knox was one of three people to sexually assault 
> > > > Meredith Kercher, brutalize her body, and cut her throat. In Angel 
> > > > Face, Rome-based Daily Beast senior writer Barbie Latza Nadeau – who 
> > > > cultivated personal relationships with the key figures in both the 
> > > > prosecution and the defense – describes how the Knox family's 
> > > > heavy-handed efforts to control media coverage distorted the facts, 
> > > > inflamed an American audience, and painted an offensive, inaccurate 
> > > > picture of Italy's justice system. An eye-opener for any parent 
> > > > considering sending a child away to study, Angel Face reveals what 
> > > > really went on in this incomprehensible crime."
> > > > 
> > > > I certainly was hoodwinked by several American news magazine stories 
> > > > (like 20/20 and Dateline) into believing that Knox was innocent.  But 
> > > > after reading several blogs to the contrary, I believe she's quite 
> > > > guilty.
> > > > 
> > > > Barry, are you aware of this case and, if so, can you give us Europe's 
> > > > reaction to it?
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Barry: what can you tell us of Europe's reaction to Amanda Knox?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> I don't know who Amanda Knox is and don't care. 
> 
> Most Europeans I know wouldn't know or care, either.
> 


Interesting.

Most media accounts I've read or seen here specifically said that the Amanda 
Knox case was gripping all of Europe.

Anther thing they got wrong, I suppose.



> To be honest, if you had asked me this question a week
> ago, I would have said that I simply don't understand
> Americans' fascination with media-fueled "crime stories."
> 
> But now I've been stuck in my hotel room for extended
> periods of time waiting for conference calls with only
> my TV and remote control to amuse me, and I understand
> better. The programming on American TV is so bad that
> the crime stories on the news are often more entertain-
> ing. :-)
> 
> The worst so far is "Bad Girls Club," which seems to 
> be what they call a "reality show" in which they pit
> seven or eight megabitches against each other for
> several days to see who can dirty-trick the others
> out of the running for Big Bitch. Horrific.
> 
> I must admit to not having discovered anything I wasn't
> watching already that I feel like continuing to watch.
> I did watch a few more old episodes of "Bones," and
> have come to like Zooey Deschanel's sister Emily. Not
> enough to keep watching the series, but she seems to
> be a better actress than Zooey. And they could easily
> both be TM meditators, so that may even reduces my 
> "anti-TM quotient."
> 
> Since my friends here can't get together with me until
> 10:00 tonight, I'm looking forward to watching the
> resuming series "Fastforward" to see whether they'll be
> able to come up with anything interesting.
> 
> But I haven't been able to make it through more than 2
> or 3 minutes of *any* news show. Enough to realize that
> FOX is even more over-the-top than I thought it was, and
> that sadly most of the others aren't that far behind. So
> I'm really not the person to ask about some news story
> personality.
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > The following is from amazon.com's product description of the book "Angel 
> > Face: the true story of student killer Amanda Knox":
> > 
> > " Despite all the airtime devoted to Amanda Knox, it's still hard to 
> > reconcile the fresh-faced honor student from Seattle with the sexually 
> > rapacious killer convicted of the November 2007 murder of her British 
> > roommate. Few Americans have heard all of the powerful evidence that 
> > convinced a jury that Knox was one of three people to sexually assault 
> > Meredith Kercher, brutalize her body, and cut her throat. In Angel Face, 
> > Rome-based Daily Beast senior writer Barbie Latza Nadeau – who cultivated 
> > personal relationships with the key figures in both the prosecution and the 
> > defense – describes how the Knox family's heavy-handed efforts to control 
> > media coverage distorted the facts, inflamed an American audience, and 
> > painted an offensive, inaccurate picture of Italy's justice system. An 
> > eye-opener for any parent considering sending a child away to study, Angel 
> > Face reveals what really went on in this incomprehensible crime."
> > 
> > I certainly was hoodwinked by several American news magazine stories (like 
> > 20/20 and Dateline) into believing that Knox was innocent.  But after 
> > reading several blogs to the contrary, I believe she's quite guilty.
> > 
> > Barry, are you aware of this case and, if so, can you give us Europe's 
> > reaction to it?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Shemp and Alex prove Ron Paul is a liar.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> So what have you proven big guy?
> That Ron Paul is a jerk and idiot on some issues??
> 


What I have demonstrated is that you are not to be trusted when you write 
something here on this forum.



> You are right, he is an idiot on some issues as I have said many times,
> just like his pretense of being anti-abortion, he is an obvious flake,
> and a flip=flopper, and you have proven that.
> 



What took me an inordinate amount of energy to demonstrate to you that you had 
it wrong shouldn't have.

Here you are finally admitting you had it wrong when you could have done it 
after the first, obvious instance of pointing it out to you.

You've wasted my time, Alex's time, and everyone else on this forum who have 
bothered to read these posts (and I suspect that many didn't bother, 
thankfully).




> He makes John Kerry look like a solid stalwart King of the
> ImmovableStupa. ( I threw that in for Cardemeister to go to work and
> figure some stuff out, instead of sitting around doing squat.)
> 
> You are finally waking up to the fact that Ron Paul is a chancer and a
> player.
> 
> But the fact is, that Ron Paul is still the best YOU Republicans have
> for a leader.



I am not now nor have I ever been a Republican.  You'd know that if you read my 
posts.



> 
> However,  Obama is far more of a world leader, modern man, and an usher
> of the future, than any Republican will ever be.
> 
> Thank god we have Obama and not Ron Paul.
> 



That's a reflection on those that, fanatically, supported and endorsed Ron Paul.

Gee, I wonder who on this forum fits such a description?



> I REALLY hope that RP will be the next Republican candidate. He'll be
> awesome, but he will be too busy agreeing with Obama on everything, to
> be able to win.
> 
> OFF-WORLD PREDICTION:   YOU will hear Ron Paul in an interview in the
> next 6 months saying that something needs to be done about the danger of
> Climate Change.
> 
> Make a date. Put it in your diary. You WILL hear it right here, within 6
> months.
> 


Are you a betting man?

We could send the money to Rick Archer to hold.

Let me know...



> OffWorld
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you, Alex, for taking the time to find this.  However, I don't
> hold out much hope that it will do any good vis a vis convincing
> Off_World that Paul's position is the opposite of Obama's.
> >
> > On many of the key, important issues I have, through quotes and
> citations, tried to show Off that the two gentlemen are at opposite ends
> of the political spectrum.
> >
> > I have been reading Ron Paul for years and admire him on many points
> he makes.  I am almost completely opposed to what Barack Obama stands
> for.  Yes, Paul and Obama agree on a few things, such as their
> opposition to the Iraq War (although they come to it from the opposite
> reasons).  But on practically everything else, they disagree.
> >
> > So it was with great irritation that I have to continually read Off
> say that they are the same.
> >
> > Perhaps I am being too sensitive and should realize that most if not
> all of the readers on this forum don't give him any credibility any way.
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "Alex Stanley"
>  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Yawn.
> > > > >
> > > > > All of the quotes below undated or from 2007.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Paul's latest declarations on Global Warming?  As Off
> already
> > > > knows, Paul calls it a "hoax":
> > > > >
> > > > > "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many
> years
> > > > if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global
> warming."
> > > > – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009
> > > >
> > > > Where's the transcript?
> > > > This is not credible.
> > > >
> > > > OffWorld
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business-\
> as-usual-in-washington/
> <http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business\
> -as-usual-in-washington/>
> > >
> > > http://is.gd/aNcXa <http://is.gd/aNcXa>
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Barry: what can you tell us of Europe's reaction to Amanda Knox?

[ShempMcGurk]

The following is from amazon.com's product description of the book "Angel Face: 
the true story of student killer Amanda Knox":

" Despite all the airtime devoted to Amanda Knox, it's still hard to reconcile 
the fresh-faced honor student from Seattle with the sexually rapacious killer 
convicted of the November 2007 murder of her British roommate. Few Americans 
have heard all of the powerful evidence that convinced a jury that Knox was one 
of three people to sexually assault Meredith Kercher, brutalize her body, and 
cut her throat. In Angel Face, Rome-based Daily Beast senior writer Barbie 
Latza Nadeau – who cultivated personal relationships with the key figures in 
both the prosecution and the defense – describes how the Knox family's 
heavy-handed efforts to control media coverage distorted the facts, inflamed an 
American audience, and painted an offensive, inaccurate picture of Italy's 
justice system. An eye-opener for any parent considering sending a child away 
to study, Angel Face reveals what really went on in this incomprehensible 
crime."

I certainly was hoodwinked by several American news magazine stories (like 
20/20 and Dateline) into believing that Knox was innocent.  But after reading 
several blogs to the contrary, I believe she's quite guilty.

Barry, are you aware of this case and, if so, can you give us Europe's reaction 
to it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming - Shemp still smarting from smackdown !

[ShempMcGurk]

Thank you, Alex, for taking the time to find this.  However, I don't hold out 
much hope that it will do any good vis a vis convincing Off_World that Paul's 
position is the opposite of Obama's.

On many of the key, important issues I have, through quotes and citations, 
tried to show Off that the two gentlemen are at opposite ends of the political 
spectrum.

I have been reading Ron Paul for years and admire him on many points he makes.  
I am almost completely opposed to what Barack Obama stands for.  Yes, Paul and 
Obama agree on a few things, such as their opposition to the Iraq War (although 
they come to it from the opposite reasons).  But on practically everything 
else, they disagree.

So it was with great irritation that I have to continually read Off say that 
they are the same.

Perhaps I am being too sensitive and should realize that most if not all of the 
readers on this forum don't give him any credibility any way.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Alex Stanley"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Yawn.
> > >
> > > All of the quotes below undated or from 2007.
> > >
> > > Ron Paul's latest declarations on Global Warming?  As Off already
> > knows, Paul calls it a "hoax":
> > >
> > > "The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years
> > if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming."
> > – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009
> > 
> > Where's the transcript?
> > This is not credible.
> > 
> > OffWorld
> >
> 
> http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-11-04/ron-paul-on-fox-business-its-business-as-usual-in-washington/
> 
> http://is.gd/aNcXa
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hide the decline and rewrite history

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> 
> ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/hiding-a-different-decline-and-rewriting-history/
> 
> So Comrade Shemp, what would you do if you didn't have global warming to 
> complain about?
>


All my fun would be ruined.

[FairfieldLife] Hide the decline and rewrite history

[ShempMcGurk]

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/hiding-a-different-decline-and-rewriting-history/

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming - Shemp still smarting from smackdown !

[ShempMcGurk]

Yawn.

All of the quotes below undated or from 2007.

Ron Paul's latest declarations on Global Warming?  As Off already knows, Paul 
calls it a "hoax":

"The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not 
hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming." – Ron Paul on 
Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> Ron Paul on Global Warming: ""Global temperatures have been warming
> since the Little Ice Age.  Studies within the respectable scientific
> community have shown that human beings are most likely a part of this
> process.""  snip> ""I strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Providing for a
> clean environment is an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do
> that. Also, the regulations are harmful for American workers,
> because it encourages corporations to move their business overseas to
> countries where the regulations don't apply I am more than willing
> to work cooperatively with other nations to come up with policies that
> will safeguard the environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions
> that place an unnecessary burden on the United States.""
> When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be
> involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:
> "Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with
> China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't
> pollute?  ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to
> slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.  I don't
> like subsidizing oil companies.  They've been doing that for years.  We
> go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more
> oil.  So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by
> subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.  And that's why we're in the
> Middle East, to protect oil interests."
> When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased,
> Dr. Paul replied:
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically
> authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that
> involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he
> does not seek legislation to combat the global warming.  Instead, he
> advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and
> altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to
> global warming.
> 
> http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Your link says nothing about which punishment he would give to doctors
> or women, but in an interview he said he would not punish them.
> 
> Case closed.
> 



This is getting ridiculous.

Of course he said they should be punished.  Didn't you read the link?

>From the link:

"Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway, what 
should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the abortion?
"A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal government out of it. We 
don't need a federal abortion police. That's the last thing that we need. There 
has to be a criminal penalty for the person that's committing that crime. And I 
think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don't think that should 
be up to the president to decide." 








> He is pro-choice and he doesn't even know it. This is where he is weak,
> and has not thought this issue through, although he is right on many
> other issues, and on the one he holds most dear - anti-war.
> 
> OffWorld
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > If you are going to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on issues, such
> as you do below with the abortion issue, AND AT THE SAME TIME CUT OUT
> THE LINK I PROVIDED IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MISREPRESENTED HIS
> POSITION, I cannot continue this exercise:
> >
> > http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
> <http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm>
> >
> > Not only is your blatant misrepresentation dishonest, your elimination
> of the link is, I believe, completely deceitful and lacking in
> integrity.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , off_world_beings 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto: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" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , off_world_beings 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk"
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:Fa

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

If you are going to misrepresent Ron Paul's position on issues, such as you do 
below with the abortion issue, AND AT THE SAME TIME CUT OUT THE LINK I PROVIDED 
IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU MISREPRESENTED HIS POSITION, I cannot continue 
this exercise:

http://www.ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

Not only is your blatant misrepresentation dishonest, your elimination of the 
link is, I believe, completely deceitful and lacking in integrity.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk"
> > > 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "lurkernomore20002000"
> > > > > > > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk"
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was
> > > given the
> > > > > > > Nobel
> > > > > > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but
> > > that
> > > > > > > America
> > > > > > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it
> you
> > > find to be
> > > > > > > so
> > > > > > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about
> Bush:
> > > the
> > > > > > > deficit.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt,
> the
> > > United
> > > > > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National
> Debt.
> > > That
> > > > > > > represents about $700 per person per year.>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the
> Bush
> > > tax cuts
> > > > > > > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made
> this
> > > figure
> > > > > > > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at
> avoiding
> > > taxes by
> > > > > > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant
> difference
> > > if those
> > > > > > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bush left us with a

[FairfieldLife] Re: Umpires needed: Does this answer Shemp's questions?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"
> 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > > > > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"
> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was
> given the
> > > > > Nobel
> > > > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but
> that
> > > > > America
> > > > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you
> find to be
> > > > > so
> > > > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush:
> the
> > > > > deficit.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the
> United
> > > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.
> That
> > > > > represents about $700 per person per year.>
> > > > >
> > > > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush
> tax cuts
> > > > > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this
> figure
> > > > > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding
> taxes by
> > > > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference
> if those
> > > > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus
> he hid
> > > > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > > >
> > > > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had
> the war
> > > > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > > >
> > > > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > > >
> > > > > OffWorld
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations
> on Ron Paul.
> > > >
> > > > You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.
> > > >
> > > > Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here. You can't keep
> misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I responded to your questionso on this many times, You never read
> the responses, because you do not like facts. Go back and find the
> responses yourself. I am not answering this AGAIN!
> > >
> > > OffWolrd
> > >
> >
> >
> > No, you didn't.
> >
> > Your response to post #243274, in which I demonstrated to you that Ron
> Paul's stance on embryonic stem cell research was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE
> of what you represented it to be, didn't address anything.
> >
> > And where was your respone to post #243273 in which I demonstrated to
> you that Ron Paul's position on two of today's biggest issues -- global
> warming and abortion -- are completely opposite of what you believe?
> >
> 
> 
> Umpires needed. Shemp has completely gone off the rails. Does this below
> answer Shemp's questions?
&g

[FairfieldLife] Re: Ron Paul on Global Warming - Trying this again - stuff got cut off.

[ShempMcGurk]

Check the dates of my Ron Paul quotes and YOUR Ron Paul quotes and you'll see 
that mine are more recent than ALL of your's.

And yet my Ron Paul quote -- in which he says it appears to all be a fraud -- 
was said BEFORE you said that he believed in AGW.

Again, you stand corrected.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> Ron Paul on Global Warming A Plug for the Candidate by Sterling D. Allan
> 
> Pure Energy Systems News: The "fringe" candidate that has been taking
> the Internet by storm measures his stance on global warming the same he
> does most all issues -- by the U.S. Constitution. Ron Paul on Global
> Warming: ""Global temperatures have been warming since the Little Ice
> Age.  Studies within the respectable scientific community have shown
> that human beings are most likely a part of this process.""  snip> ""I
> strongly oppose the Kyoto treaty.  Providing for a clean environment is
> an excellent goal, but the Kyoto treaty doesn't do that. Also, the
> regulations are harmful for American workers, because it encourages
> corporations to move their business overseas to countries where the
> regulations don't apply I am more than willing to work cooperatively
> with other nations to come up with policies that will safeguard the
> environment, but I oppose all nonbinding resolutions that place an
> unnecessary burden on the United States.""
> When asked by Bill Maher if he thinks the Federal Government should be
> involved in stopping Global Warming, Ron Paul replied:
> "Then you have to deal with the volcanoes, and you have to deal with
> China... so what are you going to do, invade China so they don't
> pollute?  ... But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't do what we can to
> slow up the emissions and stop subsidizing big oil companies.  I don't
> like subsidizing oil companies.  They've been doing that for years.  We
> go to war to protect oil, so that we can buy more oil, and burn more
> oil.  So I say our foreign policy contributes to global warming -- by
> subsidizing a policy that is deeply flawed.  And that's why we're in the
> Middle East, to protect oil interests."
> When asked if efforts to slow down Global Warming should be increased,
> Dr. Paul replied:
> 
> "Yes."
> 
> Because he does not support any piece of legislation not specifically
> authorized by the Constitution, Paul votes against most bills that
> involve government spending or expanded government initiatives; thus he
> does not seek legislation to combat the global warming.  Instead, he
> advocates reducing emissions, halting subsidies to oil companies, and
> altering a war-for-oil foreign policy that in itself contributes to
> global warming.
> 
> http://pesn.com/2007/11/05/9500456_RonPaul_on_GlobalWarming/
> 
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: The Financial Crimes of GW Bush.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Your math doesn't make sense.

Bush left office over a year ago.  If he left us with a national debt of 11.3 
trillion and you're saying that the current national debt clock is 12.5 
trillion, that's a difference of "only" 1.2 trillion (despite the fact that the 
deficit is $1.6 trillion, not 1.2 trillion).

So where are the "hidden costs" of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars if Obama put 
the war costs on the books?  These costs didn't come with revenue attached to 
them; they are expenses and would therefore be put "properly" by Obama on the 
debt side of things.  I always hear that the war in Iraq alone has cost $1 
trillion.  If that's the case, the national debt clock should be 13.5 trillion, 
not 12.5 trillion.

[FairfieldLife] Off_World, Bullshit Artist extraordinaire, can't come clean

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> > > steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
> > > Nobel
> > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
> > > America
> > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > >
> > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
> > > so
> > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
> > > deficit.
> > > >
> > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
> > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
> > > represents about $700 per person per year.>
> > > 
> > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > > for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
> > > smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > 
> > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > 
> > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > 
> > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron 
> > Paul.
> > 
> > You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.
> > 
> > Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here.  You can't keep 
> > misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.
> >
> 
> I responded to your questionso on this many times, You never read the 
> responses, because you do not like facts. Go back and find the responses 
> yourself. I am not answering this AGAIN! 
> 
> OffWolrd
>


No, you didn't.

Your response to post #243274, in which I demonstrated to you that Ron Paul's 
stance on embryonic stem cell research was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you 
represented it to be, didn't address anything.

And where was your respone to post #243273 in which I demonstrated to you that 
Ron Paul's position on two of today's biggest issues -- global warming and 
abortion -- are completely opposite of what you believe?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

I didn't know Paul Krugman was a participant on this forum.



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Ok, that makes sense.
> 
> Lurk, it really doesn't. Almost all of what has been
> added to the deficit under Obama has been to keep the
> economy (which began falling apart largely as a result
> of Bush's policies) from crashing completely.
> 
> The big problem is that he didn't add *enough* to the
> deficit to really do the job; all he did was save the
> banks and Wall Street, at least for the time being, and
> make a pathetically small inroad on unemployment. He
> hasn't managed to put in place what's needed to keep
> this from happening again, worse, which is more
> regulation.
> 
> > I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I think
> > we're in trouble.
> 
> The problem is long-term deficits. Short-term deficits
> that lift the economy are beneficial. If they work, the
> short-term part gets paid off. Not making that distinction,
> as Shemp does not, is misleading in the extreme.
> 
> Here's a pretty good basic explanation of deficit spending:
> 
> http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/03/20/making-heads-and-tails-of-the-cbo-budget-numbers/
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/yeaq7h8
> 
> This was written a year ago, before we knew what would
> be involved in healthcare reform. Whether the program
> they're now trying to pass will cut costs sufficiently
> is a whole 'nother question (as is whether it'll get
> passed at all).
>

[FairfieldLife] How long does it take to perfect such a signature?

[ShempMcGurk]

I'm sure Liberace and Carrot Top have equally flamboyant signatures. 
And, indeed, when I was about 14 years old and fancied myself a rock
star I practised my signature 100s of times in order to come up with
something like this.

But a president???

This is bizarre.  Where did a Harvard graduate and constitutional law
professor find the time to practise such a signature?  And what was he
thinking as he practised it?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. 
> > > I think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> > > markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> > > sentiment can change quickly.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  
> > Yet the stock market reached unprecedented highs.
> > 
> > Same thing happening here, I believe.
> > 
> 
> What is of real concern of the wealthy is the inevitable return to 
> progressive taxation;  the noise from Republicans about deficit spending is 
> meant to distract from the solution - much higher marginal tax rates on the 
> top earners.   
> 




The problem for Obama is that he has been told by the statisticians and people 
at Treasury that if he raises the tax rates on the rich (i.e., raise the top 
tax brackets) it may make his base happy but it will result in the opposite of 
what he wants and needs: more tax revenue.  He'll get less.

And he also knows that he's got to raise the lower brackets.

So how does he put forward what is essentially a libertarian agenda when he is 
a far left democrat?





> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > > >  wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the 
> > > > > > > > Nobel
> > > > > Peace
> > > > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > > > gave him the
> > > > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be 
> > > > > so
> > > > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the 
> > > > deficit.
> > > > 
> > > > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United 
> > > > States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That 
> > > > represents about $700 per person per year.
> > > > 
> > > > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as 
> > > > they are now, at historic lows.
> > > > 
> > > > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > > > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > > > 
> > > > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME 
> > > > POINT?  When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to 
> > > > attract them to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > > > 
> > > > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year 
> > > > on the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to 
> > > > a meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > > > 
> > > > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > > > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will 
> > > > now be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > > > 
> > > > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > > > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > > > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > > > service the debt.
> > > > 
> > > > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > > > 
> > > > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating 
> > > > on his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > > > 
> > > > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > > > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "mainstream20016"  
wrote:
>
> Shemp,
> So you advocate lowering income tax rates.   At what rate of 
> income is tax revenue maximized ?   Please don't insult our intelligence by 
> suggesting 0%. 
> 
> -Mainstream  
> 




Let me answer that question in two ways:

1) My ideal federal income tax system would be a flat tax system: 17% flat tax 
rate and no payroll tax.

2)  If our starting point was the current 6 tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 
33%, 35%) I would raise the 10 and 15 brackets to 17% and lower the 25, 28, 33, 
and 35 brackets to 17%.  And, of course, no payroll tax.

...and not to insult your intelligence but there is actually an answer that is 
"0%" and that is what they call the "Fair Tax" which as I understand it says no 
income tax, no payroll tax, and no corporate tax but a consumption tax on all 
goods and services.  Not sure whether I advocate that yet.  And I forget off 
hand what the rate would be.

In addition to its income tax, Canada has a goods and services tax somewhat 
like the above.






> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [snip]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> > > for the rich because of this scenario?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
> > (which, yes, affect the rich).
> > 
> > Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.
> > 
> > The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > That would have made this figure
> > > smaller per person,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> > > all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> > > tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> > > 
> > > Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> > > the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> > > 
> > > The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> > > costs put on the books properly.
> > > 
> > > So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Come Clean first, Off

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"
> steve.sundur@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the
> Nobel
> > > Peace
> > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that
> America
> > > gave him the
> > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > the same credentials."
> > >
> > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment. What is it you find to be
> so
> > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the
> deficit.
> >
> > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United
> States paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt. That
> represents about $700 per person per year.>
> 
> That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich because of this scenario? That would have made this figure
> smaller per person, and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Off, it's time for you to come clean on your false representations on Ron Paul.

You never responded to my previous posts on this subject.

Time for you to come clean to me and everyone here.  You can't keep 
misrepresenting yourself without being called on it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> Ok, that makes sense.  I thought it might be for other reasons.  I agree. I 
> think we're in trouble.  But you don't really see that reflected in the 
> markets.  Dollar has regained strength.  Gold is moderating. Of course 
> sentiment can change quickly.
> 



People knew for years we were in deep shit regarding the mortgage crisis.  Yet 
the stock market reached unprecedented highs.

Same thing happening here, I believe.




> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> >  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> > > Peace
> > > > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> > > gave him the
> > > > > > White House based on:
> > > > > > the same credentials."
> > > 
> > > Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> > > objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.
> > 
> > Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States 
> > paid about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents 
> > about $700 per person per year.
> > 
> > This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they 
> > are now, at historic lows.
> > 
> > Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded 
> > them to an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.
> > 
> > What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  
> > When nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them 
> > to buying it, interest rates will have to go up.
> > 
> > So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on 
> > the $10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a 
> > meager 6 or 7 percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.
> > 
> > Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll 
> > reach in about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now 
> > be $1.5 trillion a year in interest.
> > 
> > This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the 
> > debt.  Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all 
> > taxpayers) and you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to 
> > service the debt.
> > 
> > And all that without reducing the debt at all.
> > 
> > And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on 
> > his presidential library oblivious to it all.
> > 
> > They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they 
> > incurred.  This is probably the end of America as we know it.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

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



[snip]



> 
> That's peanuts. Am I right you are therefore against the Bush tax cuts
> for the rich because of this scenario?



No, that is precisely why I am FOR the tax cuts for the HIGHER tax brackets 
(which, yes, affect the rich).

Lowering the higher tax brackets INCREASED tax revenue.

The problem was lowing the lower tax brackets which DECREASED tax revenues.




> That would have made this figure
> smaller per person,






No, the opposite would have happened.  You know not of what you speak.






> and the rich, who are experts at avoiding taxes by
> all legal means, would hardly notice any significant difference if those
> tax cuts were repealled. Problem solved, debt paid.
> 
> Bush left us with a national debt of 11.3 trillion dollars, plus he hid
> the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
> 
> The national debt clock today shows 12.5 trillion, and Obama had the war
> costs put on the books properly.
> 
> So what's your point again Shemp? I don't get it.
> 



Keep reading the post over and over again until you do.



> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Question to Shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> > > > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel
> Peace
> > > > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America
> gave him the
> > > > White House based on:
> > > > the same credentials."
> 
> Shemp, take away health care for a moment.  What is it you find to be so
> objectionable about Obama's presidency so far?
>


Pretty much the same thing I found objectionable about Bush: the deficit.

Two years ago with about $10 trillion in National Debt, the United States paid 
about $230 billion in interest on its National Debt.  That represents about 
$700 per person per year.

This cost, please bear in mind, was born while interest rates were, as they are 
now, at historic lows.

Obama has not only taken Bush's ridiculously high deficits but expanded them to 
an unbelievable level: $1.6 trillion.

What will happen when interest rates go up WHICH THEY MUST AT SOME POINT?  When 
nations such as China stop buying our debt, in order to attract them to buying 
it, interest rates will have to go up.

So, for starters, triple the $230 billion figure to $750 billion a year on the 
$10 trillion.  And that's based on putting interest rates up to a meager 6 or 7 
percent interest figure.  Not a hard level to reach.

Then double the $10 trillion national debt to $20 trillion which we'll reach in 
about 3 or 4 years. That $750 billion a year in interest will now be $1.5 
trillion a year in interest.

This represents about $4-5,000 a person, per year, just to service the debt.  
Factor out the people who don't pay any tax (about 50% of all taxpayers) and 
you're looking at about $8-10,000 per person per year to service the debt.

And all that without reducing the debt at all.

And by this time Barack Obama will be out of office and concentrating on his 
presidential library oblivious to it all.

They say that most empires in history ended because of the debt they incurred.  
This is probably the end of America as we know it.

[FairfieldLife] Re: India 'issues' zero rupee banknotes

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, tartbrain  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:30 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > 
> > > I find it amusing that the man who royally fucked up India's economy for 
> > > 50
> > > years -- Mahatma Gandhi -- graces the zero rupee note.
> > >
> > > That's what his economic policies are worth.
> > >
> > > I saw the movie "Gandhi" about a year or two after visiting that hell-hole
> > > known as India for a TM course.  I was the only one in the theatre 
> > > cheering
> > > for the British.
> 
> You cheer for one of the most wicked, blood-sucking, evil, violent, inhumane, 
> blood-chillingly cruel, imperialistic empires of all times? 
> 


Yes, proudly.

Britain and its common law brought freedom to corners of the world that had 
never seen it.

Britain was largely responsible for ending the practise of slavery throughout 
the world in which it was practised by many cultures.

You've been listening to Lyndon Larouche a wee bit too much.




> 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > I cheer for the British everytime I have to watch the DVD of Ghandi.  At
> > least the British were civilized and white.   Hold on.  Those two are
> > synonymous.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > "As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given  the Nobel Peace
> > Prize without any accomplishments to his name, but that America gave him the
> > White House based on:
> > the same credentials."
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film
> > blocked lessens my opinion of them.  Simply because if you
> > want less people to see a negative film about you, the last
> > thing you do is try and get it banned.
> > 
> > Haven't they heard of the concept of "banned in Boston"?  A
> > sure way to make your movie or book a hit is to get people
> > thinking there is something that is so much of interest or 
> > controversy that you try and squelch it. A guarantee for
> > good box office.
> 
> Interestingly, the producers of the recent film about
> Darwin tried to evoke precisely this result by claiming
> it couldn't get a distributor because the distributors
> were afraid of protests. Not sure it did them much good,
> though, given the film's very mixed critical reception.
> 
> Even more interesting is this paragraph from the Guardian
> article at the link:
> 
> "The filming of Valkyrie sparked numerous clashes between
> the filmmakers and the government, which initially prevented
> them from filming on several historical sites, including the
> Bendler Block where Stauffenberg was hanged, due in part to
> Cruise's association with Scientology. The ban was eventually
> lifted."
> 
> The HuffPo article Barry quotes doesn't mention that 
> the attempts at film-banning have gone both ways.
> 
> It does note that the German government took a good stab
> at banning the Scientology organization itself:
> 
> > > The following year the German government attempted to
> > > ban the organization after reports of illegal activity.
> 
> According to the linked article, it had to drop the
> attempt for lack of evidence of illegal activity.
>


I suppose that trying to get something banned is NOT, as I write above, always 
a "sure way" to success.  It doesn't always work.

Donald Trump seems to be successful in threatening to sue people and getting 
them to shut up about him.  I'm thinking Rosie O'Donnell who was stifled by The 
Donald when she attempted to show that not only wasn't he worth as much as he 
claimed but that he was on the verge of bankruptcy.

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film 
> > blocked lessens my opinion of them. ...
> > I wasn't aware that TM did this, contrary to what Barry writes 
> > below. Certainly, the TMO will do this vis a vis blocking access 
> > to MUM students or course participants but I wasn't aware that 
> > they did this to the general public.
> > 
> > Could he or anyone supply some examples?
> 
> I was thinking not of any films but of the online
> seminar that John Knapp had organized. The TMO's
> lawyers contacted him and made threats if he went 
> ahead with it, so he canceled the seminar.
> 



...and now that you mention it, someone -- presumably the TMO -- had that 
youtube of that German Rajah calling for invincibility for germany removed.  
That pissed me off more than when the copyright holders had them remove my 
favorite youtube version of the Bangles "Walk like an Egyptian".  The German 
audience rising in spontaneous opposition to that nutcase was great 
theatre...and especially the part where you see Bevan stealthily sneaking 
offstage once things start to go south.  But unless you're looking for it, you 
miss it




> > And is Barry correct about "The Simpson's"? I remember a 
> > "South Park" episode about Tom Cruise and his alleged 
> > homosexuality being attacked by Scientology, but wasn't 
> > aware of a "Simpson's" episode. 
> 
> Now that you mention it, that may be the episode
> I was thinking of. Stupid of the Scientologists
> to try to censor it, whichever show it was on.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: How to deal with films critical of religion? Try to ban or censor them.

[ShempMcGurk]

This attempt by the Church of Scientology to get this film blocked lessens my 
opinion of them.  Simply because if you want less people to see a negative film 
about you, the last thing you do is try and get it banned.

Haven't they heard of the concept of "banned in Boston"?  A sure way to make 
your movie or book a hit is to get people thinking there is something that is 
so much of interest or controversy that you try and squelch it. A guarantee for 
good box office.

The makers of the film must be thanking the Church for their donation of free 
publicity for the film.

I wasn't aware that TM did this, contrary to what Barry writes below.  
Certainly, the TMO will do this vis a vis blocking access to MUM students or 
course participants but I wasn't aware that they did this to the general public.

Could he or anyone supply some examples?

And is Barry correct about "The Simpson's"?  I remember a "South Park" episode 
about Tom Cruise and his alleged homosexuality being attacked by Scientology, 
but wasn't aware of a "Simpson's" episode. And, by the way, the ONLY "South 
Park" episode I ever saw was the Tom Cruise one precisely because Scientology 
and/or Cruise tried so hard to have it banned that I simply had to watch it, 
proving my point above.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> How the Church Of Scientology is choosing to deal with this German film
> critical of its organization is interesting, because we don't know yet
> how the TM organization is going to deal with the German film "David
> Wants To Fly." Both organizations have a history of trying to legally
> suppress critical comment about them. Heck, the Scientologists tried to
> have an episode of "The Simpsons" banned, probably because its writers
> were being "mean" to them. We'll just have to wait and see whether the
> TMO takes the same "ban the critics who are being mean to us" approach.
> 
> Scientologists Try To Block Highly Critical Film
> 
> The Church Of Scientology has expressed anger at a German TV film  that
> is reported to be critical of the controversial organization.
> 
> Germany's state broadcaster, ARD, is planning to broadcast the film, 
> titled Bis Nichts Mehr Bleibt, which translates as Until  Nothing
> Remains.
> 
> The 90-minute drama tells the story of Heiner von Ronns, a German man 
> who leaves the organization after donating a large amount of money, and 
> ends up losing contact with his daughter and wife, who remain members. 
> The film is based on a true story.
>  rman-film>
> 
> Reports indicate  
> the film is notable for being  extremely critical of the organization,
> portraying it is totalitarian  and dangerous.
> 
> Scientology leaders called the drama a piece of propaganda and have 
> sought to censor the film before its broadcast, criticizing the state 
> station for not supporting religious tolerance.
> 
> Jürg Stettler, a spokesman for Scientology in Germany, said, "We will
> show that the so-called expert engaged by ARD Ursula Caberta is feeding 
> the media false information," adding that the film's reportedly true 
> story is fabricated.
> 
> "Exactly the opposite of what ARD shows is the truth," he said.
> ARD's programme director Volker Herres has dismissed the accusations, 
> and hit out against Scientology.
>  ologists-try-to-ban-critical-German-feature-film.html>
> "We're not dealing here with a religion, rather with an organization 
> that has completely different motives," he said. "Scientology is about 
> power, business, and building up a network. Its lessons are pure science
> fiction, it's no religion, no church, no sect."
> 
> The Church of Scientology has had a difficult history in Germany,  where
> it is officially designated an anti-constitutional organization.
> 
> In 2007, the German protestant church called Tom Cruise the "Goebbels of
> Scientology
>  390.html> " after Cruise, a prominent  member, starred in the film
> Valkyrie, set in Nazi Germany. The  following year the German government
> attempted to ban the organization  after reports of illegal activity
>  5537.html> .
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Christians Urged to Boycott Glenn Beck

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-gl
> enn-beck/?hp
>

This is great news for TM initiations!

If everyone was to leave churches that preached "social justice" the only 
church left to go to would be the TM Church because as we all know the TM 
organisation NEVER, EVER does anything in the social field.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Chief Catholic Exorcist : Satan Is in the Vatican

[ShempMcGurk]

I thought the devil was inhabiting Pat Robertson's body.

Isn't Pat privy to the deal Satan made with the Haitians 200 years ago?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> Chief exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth says Devil is in the Vatican
> From The Times - March 11, 2010
> Richard Owen in Rome
> 
>   [Gabriele Amorth, an exorcist in the diocese of Rome poses in Rome,
> 2005.]  Giulio Napolitano, AFP / Getty Images Rev. Gabriele Amorth, who
> served as
> the Catholic Church's chief exorcist for
> 25 years, claims the devil has infiltrated
> the Vatican.
>  Sex abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church are proof that
> that "the  Devil is at work inside the Vatican", according to the Holy
> See's chief  exorcist.
> 
> Father Gabriele Amorth, 85, who has been the Vatican's chief exorcist
> for 25  years and says he has dealt with 70,000 cases of demonic
> possession, said  that the consequences of satanic infiltration included
> power struggles at  the Vatican as well as "cardinals who do not believe
> in Jesus, and  bishops who are linked to the Demon".
> 
> He added: "When one speaks of 'the smoke of Satan' [a phrase coined by 
> Pope Paul VI in 1972] in the holy rooms, it is all true – including
> these  latest stories of violence and paedophilia."
> 
> He claimed that another example of satanic behaviour was the Vatican
> "cover-up"  over the deaths in 1998 of Alois Estermann, the then
> commander of the Swiss  Guard, his wife and Corporal Cedric Tornay, a
> Swiss Guard, who were all  found shot dead. "They covered up everything
> immediately," he  said. "Here one sees the rot".
> 
> A remarkably swift Vatican investigation concluded that Corporal Tornay
> had  shot the commander and his wife and then turned his gun on himself
> after  being passed over for a medal. However Tornay's relatives have
> challenged  this. There have been unconfirmed reports of a homosexual
> background to the  tragedy and the involvement of a fourth person who
> was never identfied.
> 
> Father Amorth, who has just published Memoirs of an Exorcist, a series 
> of interviews with the Vatican journalist Marco Tosatti, said that the 
> attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 had been the work of
> the  Devil, as had an incident last Christmas when a mentally disturbed
> woman  threw herself at Pope Benedict XVI at the start of Midnight Mass,
> pulling  him to the ground.
> 
> Father José Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Rome-based exorcist, said that
> Father  Amorth had "gone well beyond the evidence" in claiming that
> Satan  had infiltrated the Vatican corridors.
> 
> "Cardinals might be better or worse, but all have upright intentions and
> seek the glory of God," he said. Some Vatican officials were more pious 
> than others, "but from there to affirm that some cardinals are members 
> of satanic sects is an unacceptable distance."
> 
> Father Amorth told La Repubblica that the devil was "pure spirit, 
> invisible. But he manifests himself with blasphemies and afflictions in
> the  person he possesses. He can remain hidden, or speak in different
> languages,  transform himself or appear to be agreeable. At times he
> makes fun of me."
> 
> He said it sometimes took six or seven of his assistants to to hold down
> a  possessed person. Those possessed often yelled and screamed and spat
> out  nails or pieces of glass, which he kept in a bag. "Anything can
> come  out of their mouths – finger-length pieces of iron, but also
> rose petals."
> 
> He said that he hoped every diocese would eventually have a resident
> exorcist.  Under Church Canon Law any priest can perform exorcisms, but
> in practice  they are carried out by a chosen few trained in the rites.
> 
> Father Amorth was ordained in 1954 and became an official exorcist in
> 1986. In  the past he has suggested that Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin
> were possessed  by the Devil. He was among Vatican officials who warned
> that J. K. Rowling's  Harry Potter novels made a "false distinction
> between black and white  magic".
> 
> He approves, however, of the 1973 film The Exorcist, which although
> "exaggerated"  offered a "substantially exact" picture of possession.
> 
> In 2001 he objected to the introduction of a new version of the exorcism
> rite,  complaining that it dropped centuries-old prayers and was "a
> blunt sword"  about which exorcists themselves had not been consulted.
> The Vatican said  later that he and other exorcists could continue to
> use the old ritual.
> 
> He is the president of honour of the Association of Exorcists.
> 
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7056689.ece
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Howard Stern talking about TM yesterday

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> From: Ken Chawkin 
> 
> Passing this on to you. It was sent to me from a friend. His comments.
> Download File. Only available till the end of the week.
> 
> 
> This audio recording is of a section of yesterday morning's Howard Stern
> show in which he talked about TM - influential and amusing!!
> 
> Thought you might find this amusing.  It caused a big increase in contacts
> to our call center.  95% is Howard joking about his mother bugging him about
> whether he meditates or not; then Robin talks about Carl Rove and Tiger
> Woods, and then the last 30 seconds are the great plug.  What a goof ball.
>


This can be a companion piece to Howard's rant about Gabourey Sidibe, also from 
this past week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVzv-SmPtbU

Sweet guy, that Howard.

[FairfieldLife] This is what I've been saying all along

[ShempMcGurk]

For those who think that we don't already have socialized medicine in
the United States, think again.

We already have humungous spending by government in the healthcare
field...and this article confirms it. Half of every healthcare dollar
spent in the United States is by the government.

From: http://www.slate.com/id/2247393/

What "Government Takeover"?The bogus Republican claim that Obamacare is
a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
By Daniel GrossPosted Tuesday, March 9, 2010, at 5:37 PM ET

There have been lots of absurdities in the debate—such as it
is—about health care reform. There's the hypocrisy
  of people dependent on
government-run health care complaining about government-run health care.
And now comes the Republican canard that the current health care reform
proposal constitutes a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy.
Here are Rep. Steve Buyer

of Indiana, Rep. John Fleming
  of Louisiana, and Sen. Jim DeMint
  of South Carolina making
precisely that argument.
First, the proposed health care reform does not take over the system in
any sense. Much to the chagrin of progressives, the bills under
consideration don't contain a public option and don't provide for a
single payer. In fact, they provide subsidies for millions of people to
purchase private insurance.
Second, such statements reveal how pathetically little many of our
policymakers and pundits understand American health care spending. We're
already halfway toward socialized medicine, but not because of
Obamacare. (Here's a column I wrote about this in December 2006
 .)
Over the last couple of decades, as the private sector has done a
miserable job controlling costs, as employers have felt less and less
compelled to offer health care benefits as a condition of employment, as
the population has aged, and as the government created new health care
entitlements, the government has been slowly assuming a higher portion
of health care spending in the United States—or "taking it over."

Check out Table 123 in the CDC's big annual report
 . In 1990, health care
expenditures in the United States were split, 60-40, between the private
and public sectors. By 2000, the ratio had fallen to 55.9-44.1. In other
words, in the 1990s, a period in which Republicans controlled the House
for six years, the share of health spending controlled by the government
rose by 10 percent. The trend continued in the period from 2000 to 2008,
when Republicans controlled the White House and largely controlled
Congress. The recession boosted the poverty rate, making more people
eligible for Medicaid, and led to the reduction of millions of payroll
jobs, which led to losses in job-related insurance.* <#Correction>  By
2008, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
 ,
private health care expenditures had fallen to 52.7 percent and public
had risen to 47.3 percent. In pretty much every year of the Bush
administration, the government "took over" a greater chunk of the health
care sector. And many of the Republicans who are complaining about
reform proposals today didn't utter a peep. In fact, they helped the
process along by voting for the Medicare prescription drug benefit in
2003. (Hat tip to Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic for the references
 .)

CMS also notes

that thanks to these trends, public spending will soon outpace private
spending—even in the absence of significant reform. "As a result of
more rapid growth in public spending, the public share of total health
care spending is expected to rise from 47 percent in 2008, exceed 50
percent by 2012, and then reach nearly 52 percent by 2019."

So, to reiterate, we're already half way toward fully socialized
medicine. The government has already taken over one-twelfth of the
economy—and more every day. That's the status quo the opponents of
reform are defending.

Correction, March 10, 2010: The original sentence mistakenly referred to
Medicare instead of Medicaid. (Return <#Return>  to the corrected
sentence.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The 'Pig Man' prefers Costa Rican Health Care

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> In case you aren't up on the news Rush Limbaugh declared that if health 
> care reform passes he is going to leave the country.  Leave it for Costa 
> Rica.  To show you how dense he is Costa Rica has a national health care 
> system.
>


Rush Limbaugh has so many hundreds of millions of dollars that he doesn't 
really need a healthcare system as he is one of the few lucky ones who can pay 
as he goes, so I doubt the question of Costa Rica's health policies made a 
difference to him one way or the other in his choice of where to emigrate to.  
Warm weather and nice beaches were probably more of a consideration.

Also, he said that if the health care bill passes AND the major points are 
implemented in 5 years, then he would leave.

[FairfieldLife] Re: And now for something completely different

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> http://gimundo.com/videos/view/wonderful-guitar-music-from-botswana/
> 
> This is one of the most entertaining and sensual guitar styles I have ever 
> seen.  This makes me happy in every way.
>


Seeing and hearing that video reminded me two things:

1) that blind Canadian rock guitarist who recently died.  Like the player in 
the video he too had unconventional fingering style.

2) Paul Simon's album from the '80s called Graceland that used a lot of south 
African music (Ladysmith Black Mambasso?).  A lot of the same guitar sounds.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq: Does the snow in Spain....

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Nah.  It's just Mother Earth trying to rid herself of an outbreak of 
> humanus. ;-)
> 



Humanus...is that hummous made with human flesh instead of chick peas?



> ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > With all the global cooling going on, I can't imagine it doesn't.
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >   
> >> also fall in Sitges?  :-D
> >>
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/spain-snowstorms-wreak-havoc
> >>
> >> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: For shemp

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Qu4a_dJO0&feature=related
>


Anything Paul McCartney does seems great.

Thank you.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Turq: Does the snow in Spain....

[ShempMcGurk]

With all the global cooling going on, I can't imagine it doesn't.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> also fall in Sitges?  :-D
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/09/spain-snowstorms-wreak-havoc
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:



[snip]



> I'm kind of skeptical that any economic ideology has this all figured out.  
> I'm a fan of free market capitalism but I have seen it really fuck up big 
> time. The devastation caused by not regulating the mortgage markets and the 
> creation of insane derivatives have brought the real estate market to its 
> knees. Watching that should be pretty humbling to some people who thought the 
> market would correct itself.  We are facing a decade at least of painful 
> "correction" here in my area.
> 


[snip]


I would argue that it was regulations that caused much if not most of the 
problems with the mortgage markets, not the lack of regulation.

And where lack of regulation was at fault, I would argue that it was trusting 
the overbearing, cumbersome federal government to have oversight for the 
regulation that was the problem and if regulation was needed, we will be far, 
far better served by having that regulation imposed upon us by a more local 
regulation overseer, such as the states.

The derivatives you refer to are, I assume, the Credit Default Swaps (CDSs) 
which AIG was dealing in.  Well, they are truly great financial instruments and 
any banks that were using them to hedge against the risk inherent in the 
mortgages they were holding were actually doing a very responsible thing 
because in the event of a downturn in the market, the CDSs were supposed to act 
like insurance policies and eliminate most of the loss that would occur.

But, of course, the problem was that the CDSs weren't backed up by adequate 
assets; the issuers of the CDSs, such as AIG, were selling them uncovered. And 
when it came time to pay, they couldn't. So everything collapsed.

But why, pray tell, did a bank or other institution holding those risky 
mortgage-bundles buy CDSs that would turn out to be useless?  Could it have 
been that the credit rating agencies, such as Moody's and Standard and Poor, 
had given AIG their top ratings?  If I were a financial institution buying CDSs 
to protect against the risk of the mortgages I held and saw that AIG had the 
top credit rating, could I be blamed for trusting that the CDSs swaps would 
work?

Well, it turns out that AIG was in shitty financial shape and hadn't a fraction 
of the assets to back up the, literally, trillions that the CDSs that they sold 
were supposed to protect against.  Yet the credit rating agencies nevertheless 
gave AIG a clean bill of health.

Why?

Well, one reason is that there was no competition for the rating agencies...and 
if there isn't any competition, where was the incentive for them to do a good 
job by providing accurate reports on the companies they were rating.

YOU SEE, CURTIS, THE CREDIT RATING AGENCIES WERE SANCTIONED BY THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT AS THE OFFICIAL RATING AGENCIES.  Indeed, certain financial 
transactions couldn't be done in America without the okay by these agencies.  
There wasn't competition in the credit rating "industry" because the federal 
government gave their official blessing to three of them and three only.

So it was regulation that created the situation where agencies gave such a high 
rating to a company that didn't have the assets to back up what they sold.

As for having the federal government be the regulator where regulation is 
needed, I say: look at the 50 states' Deparments of Insurance.  Yes, insurance 
companies failed during this recent crisis but in terms of dollar amount, it is 
only a very small fraction compared to the problems banks had.  One of the 
reasons is that state insurance regulations require banks to have very safe, 
conservative investments to back up the policies sold and in percentages much 
higher than for banks.

So why we would want the SEC -- which, for example, ignored 10 years of 
complaints to them that Maldoff was running a Ponzi Scheme -- to oversee CDSs, 
I do not know.  I say: if we need regulation, let the states do it 'cause they 
have a much greater track record than fucking Congress and the U.S. government 
whose record with banks is,simply, atrocious.

[FairfieldLife] Re: GW Bush: "Miss Me Yet?"...Well...Apparently Not

[ShempMcGurk]

Who would miss George Bush?

He's the one who created these horrible deficits and overspending.  He was a 
liberal through and through and Obama took most of his policies and went to a 
greater degree with them.

And, gee, who has increased war activities since Bush left office?  Could it be 
our community organiser Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> In early February, it became one of those intriguing little political
> stories that gets 30 seconds at the end of the national evening news.
> 
> You might recall that it was then that some enterprising Republican
> business owners erected a billboard along I-35 in Minnesota featuring
> George W. Bush's grinning visage and three critical words: "Miss Me
> Yet?"
> 
> Well, according to a new poll conducted by John Zogby on behalf of the
> right-wingers over at Newsmax, the answer to that question
> is...well...no.
> 
>   [A billboard along Interstate 35 in...] Photo by AP-A
> billboard along Interstate 35 in
> Wyoming, Minn., carries an image of former President
> George W. Bush and reads "Miss me yet?".
> Photo:
> http://multimedia.heraldinteractive.com/images/20100210/724d06_ltpBushBi\
> llboard.jpg
> 
> A new Zogby/Newsmax poll shows President Obama would beat George W. Bush
> in a hypothetical match up, 48% to 38%.
> 
> Said Zogby: "Despite the turbulent crises that face Barack Obama and the
> sense of dashed expectations that Americans, especially independents and
> moderates, feel, he still handily defeats George W. Bush in a face-off."
> 
> http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/08/voters_still_prefer_obama_t\
> o_bush.html
>  to_bush.html>
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> >
> > http://bigthink.com/ideas/18172
> > 
> > at about 00:58
> 
> I have it more now then when I was in India.  Although I experienced baby's 
> as begging props and the visceral horror of lepers thrusting their finger 
> nubs at me while in open tri-wheel cabs, I had bought into the Hindu idea 
> that this situation WAS fair when I was in India.
> 
> It is his rejection of that cruel ideology that makes his thinking so 
> attractive to me.  He is saying something that is the opposite view of the 
> karmic belief system, "it's not fair!"  They didn't earn this suffering by 
> their bad deeds in a past life, they just drew the short straw in life by 
> chance. And we can act to change this unfairness.
> 
> I think it is fascinating that you are promoting a guy who explicitly states 
> that he does not belief in God and whose views are so much more inline with 
> Gandhi than Guru Dev.  High five for that Nabby.
> 



...perhaps more in line with Gandhi than Guru Dev, but not Maharishi who in his 
later years, like Gandhi, had a visceral reaction to democracy and 
globalisation.  Recall that Gandhi sentenced several generations of Indians to 
dire poverty by his protectionist policies...that's what that whole silly 
spinning of cotton crap that he was engaged in was meant to do AND be symbolic 
of: "we grow the cotton in India and we ship it off to England to be 
manufactured!  Well, we must do the whole vertical manufacturing here in India! 
Grow, spin, manufacture, make into clothing", said the insane economist Gandhi. 
And 10s of millions of Ambassador cars later that never worked properly and the 
rest of the economy that were crippled by this policy and, finally, India is 
getting out of the grip of that madness.

Raj Patel wants India to go back to that and so did Maharishi from what I could 
tell.



> Of course we may have very different reasons for liking his ideas but it has 
> served as an interesting intersection for our very different opinions about 
> the world.  
> 
> 
> 
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Did you have this experience in India ? If so how did it influence you ?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> http://bigthink.com/ideas/18172
> 
> at about 00:58
>


To answer the question of this thread: did I ever have this experience in 
India?  Yes, similar ones.

How did it influence me?

I understood it to be what it was: a ruse to separate me from my money by some 
unscrupulous mountebanks.

A little girl of 8 with a baby in her arms?  Does any rational person believe 
for one minute that a parent would allow a child to run in the streets in the 
rain with a younger sibling like that?  No, of course not.  The parent(s) or 
the mastermind were most likely off to the side overseeing the ruse.

After all, this IS India and this sort of thing happens all the time.  I was 
accosted from the moment I stepped foot out of the New Delhi airport to the 
moment a month later when I stepped foot onto the Pan Am 747 that was to bring 
me home.

Along the way I developed the mindset that, a few years later, would bring me 
to cheer the British while watching that silly movie "Gandhi" which, of course, 
provides the answer Raj Patel's question as to who is responsible for the mess 
he experienced in India which is "Gandhi".

Raj Patel, like the demon Noam Chomsky in America, will do whatever he can to 
increase the poverty and starving of the masses in India and around the world.  
India finally has started to get away from the kind of influence Gandhi, 
Chomsky, and Patel would impose upon India when they embraced globalization and 
free markets about 20 years ago.  These horrible people want India to return to 
government control and inefficiency.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people
> to
> > > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I
> trust
> > > our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > > >
> > > > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to
> capably
> > > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
> > > thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > > >
> > > > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > > >
> > > > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a
> "yes"
> > > or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national
> level.
> > > And the question should be something to the effect:
> > > >
> > > > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the
> United
> > > States?">
> > >
> > > You would lose that vote.
> > > But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part
> of a
> > > public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" ---
> since
> > > that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed
> a
> > > single payer system. You have been brain-washed.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I never said he did propose such a thing.>
> 
> Why would anyone have such a vote then? It seems a completely random
> question un-related to any current topic that anyone is talking about.
> Why not just have a vote asking "should we make dogfood so that it glows
> in the dark when it comes out the other end of the dog?"
> 
> >
> > I am proposing such a thing, turd brain.
> >
> > And, hey, where is your response to the research I did showing that
> what you said about Ron Paul was full of shit?
> >
> > Are you avoiding it?>
> 
> I didn't see it. You post too much in your desperate attempt for
> attention. Post it again. But I am not discussing anything with someone
> who's best response is 'turd-brain'.
> 
> Over and out.
> 
> OffWorld
>


Oh, I see.  So you can call me "brain-washed" and all the other invectives in 
all the other posts you spew towards me but you get all huffy and puffy and 
weepy like a high school dilletante because I called you "turd-brain"?

Truth be told, you're just using that as an excuse not to respond to the 
research.

And it's not that difficult to find as I posted it within the last 24 
hours...ON A THREAD YOU YOURSELF WERE POSTING ON.

But if you're too scared to go and face it, here's the summary:

I WAS RIGHT AND YOU WERE WRONG.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Spanish/Portuguese-speaking TM teachers needed in Latin America for initiating 2 million students

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> > > >
> > > 
> > > snip
> > >  
> > > > Sorry, I don't really want to sound so cynical and negative.  Indeed, 
> > > > 35 years ago I truly believed Maharishi could pull off things like this 
> > > > because the TMO did indeed present itself -- 
> > > 
> > > snip
> > > 
> > > Relax. Maharishi's devotees are doing it, big time. I happen to know that 
> > > everything Maharishis promised, down to the smallest detail, will be 
> > > fulfilled in due time. Every detail ! 
> > > 
> > > He did indeed create heaven on earth as a seed; now His students are 
> > > fulfilling that promise.
> > > 
> > > Don't feel bad about jumping The Ship; you are always welcome back.
> > >
> > 
> > 
> > Funny, but I always felt that everyone else in the Movement -- in other 
> > words, nutcase fanatics like you, Nabby -- had jumped ship and that it was 
> > I who was the one who did the TM Program as it was originally presented.
> 
> 
> I know this is your thinking, you've said so before on numerous occasions. 
> Nothing wrong about that whatsoever. Whoever took Maharishi seriously and 
> simply did what you did is in my book a hero. One could write volumes about 
> this, as it will be. 
> 


Well, I'm speechless, Nabby.

Thank you for your very kind words.  I appreciate it.



> His project was and is so infinitely large. If someone took one little piece 
> of that infinite project seriously in his own life; all glory to him !
> 
> > 
> 
> > When I was a little boy and would do something my mother didn't like I 
> > would often protest that I was right.  And be stubborn about it.  My mother 
> > would reply: "Sure.  You're right and the rest of the world is wrong."  How 
> > prophetic she was.
> 
> Your mother was a hero too. :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to
> represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust
> our elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> >
> > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably
> represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and
> thrust of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> >
> > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> >
> > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes"
> or "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level. 
> And the question should be something to the effect:
> >
> > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United
> States?">
> 
> You would lose that vote.
> But the question should only be "Do you want to be able to be part of a
> public option that can compete with the insurance industry?" --- since
> that is the most radical thing Obama has proposed. He never proposed a
> single payer system. You have been brain-washed.




I never said he did propose such a thing.

I am proposing such a thing, turd brain.

And, hey, where is your response to the research I did showing that what you 
said about Ron Paul was full of shit?

Are you avoiding it?



> And you would lose the vote, so I am all for a referendum. You have been
> brain-washed by your silly right wing talking points blogs if you think
> you would win either of these votes.
> 
> Besides, the Republican, Neocon, Fundie Christian fanatics, and their
> UberLords would likely fix the vote anyway, like they did in the 2000
> and 2004 elections.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> You are aware that isn't one of the issues on the
> table, right? So what would be the point?
> 




My personal choice; what I would like to see.





> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to 
> > represent us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our 
> > elected representatives to make the important decisions for us.
> > 
> > But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
> > represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and thrust 
> > of parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.
> > 
> > The healthcare debate is one such example.
> > 
> > What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or 
> > "no" option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And the 
> > question should be something to the effect:
> > 
> > "Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United 
> > States?"
> > 
> > And then let the games begin.
> > 
> > Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all the crap that is 
> > happening.  Let the people decide once and for all.  Enough with this 
> > on-going debate.
> > 
> > What do you folks think?
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area of Houston, TX?

[ShempMcGurk]

Am I correct about the "Emerald City" effect?  Do you know what I am referring 
to?



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon  wrote:
>
> Yes, it has a beautiful skyline, just like you said and very modern. However, 
> the city covers a lot of square miles and you need a car to get around it. 
> Spring is a nice time to  see Houston, not hot yet, but definitely not cold, 
> temps in the upper 60's and low 70's. The country side north and west of the 
> city is covered in wild flowers by early April. Fields covered with Blue 
> Bonnets and Indian Paintbrush are a sight to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: ShempMcGurk 
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, March 8, 2010 3:52:37 PM
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area 
> of Houston, TX?
> 
>   
> I've never been to Houston, although I once flew into its airport for a 
> connecting flight.
> 
> What struck me as I was flying in was how it's downtown area had such 
> specific boundaries. That is, all of a sudden at a certain boundary all the 
> skyscrapers appeared. Flat, low-rising buildings and then, all the 
> skyscrapers all together. It looked like the Emerald City from the Wizard of 
> Oz.
> 
> Has anyone else had that impression of the skyline of Houston?
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > TurquoiseB:
> > > OK, so here's a question for you knowledgeable FFL
> > > travelers or even...gulp! ...Texans.
> > > 
> > > I have to spend several nights in...gulp!.. .Houston,
> > > Texas. I've never been there before, except driving
> > > through on the Interstate.
> > > 
> > > If it were Austin, I'd know where to stay. But it's
> > > Houston. 
> > > 
> > > IS there such a thing as a "cool neighborhood to
> > > stay in" in Houston, Texas? By "cool" I mean within
> > > walking distance of a number of good restaurants,
> > > bars, clubs, movie theaters and/or music clubs.
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance, if anyone has any real advice
> > > to offer. Not to be suspicious or anything, but 
> > > please be advised that if either Willytex or Tom 
> > > Pall replies, I'm gonna check out the 'hood before-
> > > hand to make sure they're not advising me to stay 
> > > in the worst part of town. :-)
> > >
> > There's a Motel 6 out on Highway 290 West. It's in
> > the best part of town, in other words, out of town.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Referendum

[ShempMcGurk]

I believe in representative democracy.  That is, we elect people to represent 
us.  Once elected and sitting in their legislature, I trust our elected 
representatives to make the important decisions for us.

But for those issues where our representatives are NOT able to capably 
represent us and come to a firm decision as a result of the cut and thrust of 
parliamentary debate, alternatives should be looked at.

The healthcare debate is one such example.

What I think should happen is this: a referendum question with a "yes" or "no" 
option for the voter should be presented on a national level.  And the question 
should be something to the effect:

"Do you want a universal one-payer system for healthcare in the United States?"

And then let the games begin.

Enough already with the nuances, compromises, and all the crap that is 
happening.  Let the people decide once and for all.  Enough with this on-going 
debate.

What do you folks think?

[FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area of Houston, TX?

[ShempMcGurk]

I've never been to Houston, although I once flew into its airport for a 
connecting flight.

What struck me as I was flying in was how it's downtown area had such specific 
boundaries.  That is, all of a sudden at a certain boundary all the skyscrapers 
appeared.  Flat, low-rising buildings and then, all the skyscrapers all 
together.  It looked like the Emerald City from the Wizard of Oz.

Has anyone else had that impression of the skyline of Houston?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> TurquoiseB:
> > OK, so here's a question for you knowledgeable FFL
> > travelers or even...gulp!...Texans.
> > 
> > I have to spend several nights in...gulp!...Houston,
> > Texas. I've never been there before, except driving
> > through on the Interstate.
> > 
> > If it were Austin, I'd know where to stay. But it's
> > Houston. 
> > 
> > IS there such a thing as a "cool neighborhood to
> > stay in" in Houston, Texas? By "cool" I mean within
> > walking distance of a number of good restaurants,
> > bars, clubs, movie theaters and/or music clubs.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance, if anyone has any real advice
> > to offer. Not to be suspicious or anything, but 
> > please be advised that if either Willytex or Tom 
> > Pall replies, I'm gonna check out the 'hood before-
> > hand to make sure they're not advising me to stay 
> > in the worst part of town.  :-)
> >
> There's a Motel 6 out on Highway 290 West. It's in
> the best part of town, in other words, out of town.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: A possibly impossible task: Is there a cool area of Houston, TX?

[ShempMcGurk]

WillyTex is more than happy to put you up for the night, Barry... IN HIS 
CHICKEN COOP OUT BACK BEHIND THE OUTHOUSE!



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> OK, so here's a question for you knowledgeable FFL
> travelers or even...gulp!...Texans.
> 
> I have to spend several nights in...gulp!...Houston,
> Texas. I've never been there before, except driving
> through on the Interstate.
> 
> If it were Austin, I'd know where to stay. But it's
> Houston. 
> 
> IS there such a thing as a "cool neighborhood to
> stay in" in Houston, Texas? By "cool" I mean within
> walking distance of a number of good restaurants,
> bars, clubs, movie theaters and/or music clubs.
> 
> Thanks in advance, if anyone has any real advice
> to offer. Not to be suspicious or anything, but 
> please be advised that if either Willytex or Tom 
> Pall replies, I'm gonna check out the 'hood before-
> hand to make sure they're not advising me to stay 
> in the worst part of town.  :-)
>

[FairfieldLife] Pita or saaaandwich?

[ShempMcGurk]

Pita if I want something light;

Sndwich is preferable in the winter months.

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul squarely against embryonic stem cell research

[ShempMcGurk]

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



[snip]



> They are both for science over religious Neocon fanaticism.
>


[snip]


I can't imagine that you are referring to anything but embryonic stem cell 
research, as this is the primary science over religion issue prevalent in 
American society today.

Ron Paul's record on this issue is the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of what you write 
above and claim is his position.

Here is Ron Paul's positions:

- Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007) 

- Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) 

- Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) 

From: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Off_World, you stand corrected.

I've now shown you that of the ONLY THREE issues that you said Paul was the 
same on as Obama that one of them he is the complete opposite from Obama.

In another post I've shown you that on two of the other biggest issues of our 
time -- global warming and abortion -- Paul is the complete opposite from Obama.

Must we continue this?

Is it not obvious that you are so completely wrong as to be embarrassing 
yourself?

[FairfieldLife] Ron Paul on global warming: an elaborate hoax

[ShempMcGurk]

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



[snip]



> >
> > That you supported Obama?  Nope, it confirms to me that you shouldn't
> have been in Ron Paul's camp in the first place.>
> 
> They are both against the Iraq war and Guantanomo.
> They are both against against corporate control of government.
> They are both for science over religious Neocon fanaticism.
> 
> They are more alike than anybody.
> 


[snip]


They are polar opposites.  Indeed, they come to their similar positions that 
you list above from the opposite sides of the political spectrum.

You said in a previous post that you missed Paul's position on global warming.  
I don't know how, as it is easy to google it.

Here's what Ron Paul said about global warming:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/global-warming/

Is Obama a believer?  Of course he is.

Ron Paul is against abortion and against a woman's right to choose.  Obama 
supports choice."Abortion is murder", says Ron Paul.  Indeed, one would say he 
is fanatical about it.  And if you had seen the following quotes of his without 
knowing it was Ron Paul, you would call him a nutcase neo-con, as you do with 
everyone you disagree with. 

See: http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

Now, that's just two issues but everyone would agree that they are two of the 
most important, major issues of our time.

On virtually everything else, the two men disagree.  But instead of ME having 
to do the work to prove this (which I've done extensively in the past) I'm 
going to invite YOU to do your homework and report back to us so that you have 
a chance to correct yourself, apologise for being wrong, and stand corrected.  
That way you can have at least some dignity and credibility left.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who on FFL disagrees with this?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , off_world_beings 
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com>
> > > <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> > , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of Raj Patel's main themes is that the new capital for
> the
> > > 21st
> > > > > > > century is going to be the capital of 'giving'. ie. He is
> saying
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > true wealth in the future will come from giving.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Who on FairfieldLife would say 'no' to that philosophy for
> the
> > > 21st
> > > > > > > century? In essence, do you agree with this idea or not? If
> not,
> > > > > state
> > > > > > > in one sentence your alternative approach.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > OffWorld
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I say "no" to that philosophy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The best way to allocate the scarce resources of the world in
> the
> > > > > fairest and most efficient way -- in particular and
> > > disproportionately
> > > > > in favor of the poorest of the world -- is through the
> selfishness
> > > and
> > > > > "me, firstness" of the unfettered free market.>>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for the honest answer, but your method will not work in
> the
> > > 21st
> > > > > century. Your method allocates resources to the biggest army
> only,
> > > and a
> > > > > few of their citizens and not to the most successful businesses
> as
> > > your
> > > > > free-market philosophy champions. Your method also fuels and
> > > perpetuates
> > > > > terrorism worldwide.  And the problem is, many people have the
> > > biggest
> > > > > army now, its called a nuclear bomb. So your greed will come
> back to
> > > > > bite you and leave the world devastated. So, no, your methods
> are
> > > the
> > > > > methods of the dark ages, not the 21st century.
> > > > >
> > > > > Next please. (move along now Shemp, your kind are history,
> not
> > > part
> > > > > of the future.)
> > > > >
> > > > > OffWorld
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again, the person who you supported for president, Ron Paul,
> agrees
> > > with me and disagrees with you.>
> > >
> > > I supported Obama for President.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > You supported Obama only AFTER Ron Paul was out of the running>
> 
> Nope. Ron Paul was still in the running at the time. I supported Ron
> Paul for leader of the Republican party because he was far better than
> all those idiots and criminals that you supported Shemp. But you
> warmongers pushed him out and smeared him, so that an old idiot
> warmonger could shuffle around with some bimbo ,making complete fools of
> you and your warmongering hateful ant-social archaic neandhethal friends
> Shemp.
> 
> I was the first on FFL life to support Obama for President. (and that
> fact just makes you so mad doesn't it Shemp.)
> 
> OffWorld
>


That you supported Obama?  Nope, it confirms to me that you shouldn't have been 
in Ron Paul's camp in the first place.

There is not now nor was there before the election anything about Obama that I 
much liked.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Last chance America.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Last chance America.
> > > Without reform you are bankrupt.
> > > Yes, Willytex, MDIXON,  and Shemp, you and your families will loose
> your
> > > job/income and go bankrupt. Healthcare costs this country too much.
> It
> > > is dragging the economy into an abyss.
> > >
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtZLvFrl6qk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtZLvFrl6qk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews>
> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtZLvFrl6qk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtZLvFrl6qk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews> >
> > >
> > > We Brits will be just fine though.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> >
> > What does your hero -- your fanatical choice for president -- Ron Paul
> feel about the healthcare issue, Off_World?
> >
> 
>   I never saw your stupid post with a video. Do you really think I pay
> much attention to you Shemp?
> 
> I supported Obama for President (long before anyone on FFl did):
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139394
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/139394>
> 




Everyone on this forum knows you supported Ron Paul WAY before you supported 
Obama and only switched to Obama once Ron Paul was out of the running.

Look, we all had to sit through your insufferable, fanatical Ron Paul diatribes 
for months...are you telling us now you never supported him?




> Magoo, you have nothing in common with Ron Paul.. Why do you keep
> kidding yourself? I told you a million times. You are nothing like him,
> and you don't understand any of his points.  You are a warmonger, he is
> a peacenik. Why do you keep kidding yourself?
> 
> Ron Paul is all about charities too. ie. Giving. He believes that
> helping others comes naturally. He just doesn't understand that in an
> age of ignorance, with ignoramouses such as you, there needs to be an
> organized effort to help others in a way that the consensus in society
> feels is best (rather than your ignorant inefficient ideas) --  and that
> is called socialism.
> Socialism is the wave of the future.
> 
> Peace and love.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Last chance America.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "lurkernomore20002000"
>  wrote:
> >
> >  "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > > What does your hero -- your fanatical choice for president -- Ron
> Paul feel about the healthcare issue, Off_World?
> > >
> > > Gee, let me guess: he's closer to Willytex and MDixon and eons away
> from you.
> > >
> > > And, gosh, I never heard back from you when I supplied that youtube
> of Ron Paul saying how AGW was a crock...what happened to you?
> >
> > Same thing that likely will happen to him this time. He's just not
> stand up enough to address the tough questions. Either that or he goes
> into name calling mode.
> >
> 
> Seeking communion with Mr. Magoo, the warmonger anti-social mental case,
> are you now Lurker? Good for you, you have a friend there.
> 
> I can't figure out where all your hate comes from, You don't seem like
> that type.
> 
> I never saw Shemp's stupid post with a video. Do you really think I pay
> much attention to what participants with so little depth, such as
> yourself, have to say here on FFL??
> 
> Peace.
> 
> OffWorld
>

Your offering of "Peace" at the end of a post in which you spew your negativity 
is almost as comical as Barry's posts in which he will skewer someone and then 
end with a happy face -):

[FairfieldLife] Re: You don't have democracy in the US but it's poor cousin; multible choice

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2Mldx3r2rQ&feature=related
> >
> 
> Right on. America was founded so that they could  keep their slaves.
> That's all.
> 
> OffWorld
>


As one of FFL's only Black participants, you have more credibility on the 
subject I suppose than others.  So we should listen to you on this.

Let me ask you this.  You say you supported Obama.  Did you vote for him only 
because you both share the same skin color?  Or was it his positions?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who on FFL disagrees with this?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings 
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , "ShempMcGurk" 
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> , off_world_beings no_reply@
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > One of Raj Patel's main themes is that the new capital for the
> 21st
> > > > > century is going to be the capital of 'giving'. ie. He is saying
> > > that
> > > > > true wealth in the future will come from giving.
> > > > >
> > > > > Who on FairfieldLife would say 'no' to that philosophy for the
> 21st
> > > > > century? In essence, do you agree with this idea or not? If not,
> > > state
> > > > > in one sentence your alternative approach.
> > > > >
> > > > > OffWorld
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I say "no" to that philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > The best way to allocate the scarce resources of the world in the
> > > fairest and most efficient way -- in particular and
> disproportionately
> > > in favor of the poorest of the world -- is through the selfishness
> and
> > > "me, firstness" of the unfettered free market.>>
> > >
> > > Thanks for the honest answer, but your method will not work in the
> 21st
> > > century. Your method allocates resources to the biggest army only,
> and a
> > > few of their citizens and not to the most successful businesses as
> your
> > > free-market philosophy champions. Your method also fuels and
> perpetuates
> > > terrorism worldwide.  And the problem is, many people have the
> biggest
> > > army now, its called a nuclear bomb. So your greed will come back to
> > > bite you and leave the world devastated. So, no, your methods are
> the
> > > methods of the dark ages, not the 21st century.
> > >
> > > Next please. (move along now Shemp, your kind are history, not
> part
> > > of the future.)
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> > Again, the person who you supported for president, Ron Paul, agrees
> with me and disagrees with you.>
> 
> I supported Obama for President.
> 



You supported Obama only AFTER Ron Paul was out of the running.

Don't try and weasel out of it.




> You have nothing in common with Ron Paul Shemp. Why do you keep kidding
> yourself? I told you a million times. You are nothing like him, and you
> don't understand any of his points.  You are a warmonger, he is a
> peacenik. Why do you keep kidding yourself?
> 



Ron Paul supported the war in Afghanistan.  I don't think a peacenik would do 
that.

Ron Paul was also in the military for years.



> Ron Paul is all about charities too. ie. Giving. He believes that
> helping others comes naturally. He just doesn't understand that in an
> age of ignorance, with ignoramouses such as you, there needs to be an
> organized effort to help others in a way that the consensus in society
> feels is best (rather than your ignorant inefficient ideas) --  and that
> is called socialism.
> 
> Socialism is the wave of the future.
> 



Ron Paul is 180 degrees opposite of you.



> Peace and love.
> 
> OffWorld
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Raj Raam's job description?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > Chief of Staff?
> 
> I know more or less everything that goes on within the TMO. But about this 
> matter I know nothing. 
> 
> None of us have a clue; it's a very private thing.
> 
> What I do know is that Maharishi has passed the tourch on to a very  
> deserving soul.
>


What do you think of Girish, the wanna-be Maharishi, who dresses the part like 
a little girl at Halloween dresses like Glinda, the Good Witch of the North?

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Raj Raam's job description?

[ShempMcGurk]

Chief of Staff?




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Buck:
> > Oh, that seems sad and so human...
> >
> Actually it's sad and funny, Buck, both at the
> same time. But I can't believe how interested in 
> Tony, the ex-TMers are today. It's like they 
> can't seem get enough of this trashy Tony talk. 
> 
> The Insiders, like you and me and Nabby, we give 
> them some little nibbles of information, and 
> they just crave more and more. It's like they 
> were insatiable, like a Tiger, never-ending 
> quest, this craving for insider TMO info!
> 
> So far, Vaj posted comments about fingering 
> little girls, and his Mother Goddess; Turq says 
> he doesn't give a shit about a guy getting some 
> nookie; Shemp wants to know the name of Tony's 
> wife and Lurk seems really interested in a guy 
> that just got laid on YouTube. Bill Hicks 
> apparently tried to  hump his own dog this 
> morning.
> 
> And, now some guy calling himself 'merudanda' 
> is trying to pick a fight with Judy!
> 
> merudanda:
> > Here we need may be the charming Grand Lady 
> > Judy, the diamond stone (Stein), of this FFL
> > DUDE RANCH (Barry speech/slang) to research...
> >
> FairfieldLife/message/243172ang) to research.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Wonderful "Spartacus: Blood and Tits" review

[ShempMcGurk]

I can never read or hear the title "Spartacus" without thinking of Cher 
Horowitz's interpretation of it in the movie "Clueless": "Sporaticus".

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
> >
> > It's too bad that Starz is yet another $18 a month subscription on 
> > Comcrap err... I mean XXX-finity.  If they had a 6 month for $7 a 
> > month promo I might sign up. But sadly these days there's little to 
> > offer even with my current subscription. I was surfing what 
> > OnDemand movie to watch and saw almost nothing that was of 
> > interest. Then I went to the pay OnDemand and cruised those and 
> > found little or nothing to catch my interest. With the latter I 
> > have some coupons that will defray part of the cost.
> > 
> > "Rome" was very good but I tired of it by season three and stopped 
> > watching.
> 
> I got tired of it early on and stopped watching.
> It's good that you remind me of the realities of
> whether you can see these TV series or not. Me,
> I'm an eyepatch-wearer in a country that is way
> tolerant of eyepatches, so I get to see pretty
> much anything I want. 
> 
> This series really does deserve Heather's review.
> I've never seen anything quite like it. She really
> nails it, so much so I want to date her. :-) It's
> this amazing blend of soft-core porn and hard-core
> violence, played *exactly* as she suggests, with
> the former as foreplay, but the Big O delivered
> with the latter. 
> 
> Blood splashing everywhere in ways that makes "300"
> look like a Saturday morning children's cartoon. 
> Naked or near-naked bodies everywhere. And naked
> whatever your preference is in naked. I can see this
> show having a big gay following, because let's face
> it...it's full of not only incredibly buff naked
> and near-naked men, it even shows gay male and 
> female sex. 
> 
> I don't know quite what to make of it. For me it's
> like watching a train wreck and being unable to look
> away. If this is the future of television, then the
> U.S. is further gone than I thought. It's not that
> big a leap from this show to "The Running Man" and
> gladiators for real. 
> 
> > TurquoiseB wrote:
> > > I've been kinda holding my tongue on this one. My brother got me hooked
> > > on "Spartacus: Blood and San," which I retitled as above in the Subject
> > > line after seeing the first episode, but which I have been unable to
> > > tear my eyes away from ever since. I haven't commented much on it here
> > > because I just hadn't gotten the words together to do it justice. Now I
> > > needn't bother. Heather Havrilesky on Salon did it for me.
> > >
> > > "Spartacus": "Rome" on steroids, Viagra and crack
> > >  > > rtacus_blood_and_sand_rome_on_steroids_viagra_crack/index.html>
> > > Heather
> > > Havrilesky 
> > > >From full-frontal nudity to splashing blood, is this the future of TV or
> > > just a pornographic video game gone mad?By Heather Havrilesky
> > > 
> > > Andy Whitfield in "Spartacus: Blood and Sand."
> > > What's wrong with modern life? When did our spontaneity and imagination
> > > and appetite for glory leave us, replaced by bloodshot eyes and a hard
> > > knot in the stomach, failure wrapped in neuroticism dripped with anxiety
> > > covered with dissatisfaction? When did we trade in our vibrant, lusty,
> > > devil-may-care recklessness and red wine-glazed dreams for the carpal
> > > tunnel and coffee breath of the professionally compromised? When did we
> > > go from carefree iconoclasts to distracted, sallow lumps who've wasted
> > > the better half of a decade rewriting inter-office e-mails so that
> > > they're less of a reflection of our bitter, dying souls?
> > >
> > > Sure, when we're not impaired by the relentless drumbeat of empty tweets
> > > and Googled tragedies and breathless press releases about the latest
> > > jackhole to sign up for "Dancing With the Stars," we do try to reach out
> > > to each other, tenuously, through Facebook and Twitter and sometimes
> > > even by picking up our telephones, which haven't held a solid charge
> > > since Monica Lewinsky was running around the White House in capri pants.
> > >
> > > But it's not the same. One decade into the new millennium, one too many
> > > irresistible up-to-date blurbs and blogs and snippets and tweets have
> > > smeared our once-lively spirits across the dirty windshield of life.
> > >
> > > Except when we're in a really good mood, and then everything's fine.
> > >
> > > Butt cheek of the gods
> > >
> > > Thank the lords "Spartacus: Blood and Sand" (10 p.m. Fridays on Starz)
> > > is here to show us exactly when, where and how we went astray.
> > > Apparently, back in 73 B.C., human beings 

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Alice in Wonderland" beats "Avatar" opening weekend

[ShempMcGurk]

At $2.5 billion worlwide box office, I still believe "Avatar" will hit my 
prediction of obtaining $3 billion.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> Sorry Shemp.  It looks like Avatar is going to lose out to Tim Burton's 
> PG rated "Alice in Wonderland" in 3D.   I might like to see it but it 
> will probably have to be an early matinee to avoid mom talking the kids 
> to a movie after school.  I hear that Burton did not hoke up the 3D in 
> this one.
> http://www.deadline.com/2010/03/100m-weekend-for-alice-in-wonderland/
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Spanish/Portuguese-speaking TM teachers needed in Latin America for initiating 2 million students

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> 
> snip
>  
> > Sorry, I don't really want to sound so cynical and negative.  Indeed, 35 
> > years ago I truly believed Maharishi could pull off things like this 
> > because the TMO did indeed present itself -- 
> 
> snip
> 
> Relax. Maharishi's devotees are doing it, big time. I happen to know that 
> everything Maharishis promised, down to the smallest detail, will be 
> fulfilled in due time. Every detail ! 
> 
> He did indeed create heaven on earth as a seed; now His students are 
> fulfilling that promise.
> 
> Don't feel bad about jumping The Ship; you are always welcome back.
>


Funny, but I always felt that everyone else in the Movement -- in other words, 
nutcase fanatics like you, Nabby -- had jumped ship and that it was I who was 
the one who did the TM Program as it was originally presented.

When I was a little boy and would do something my mother didn't like I would 
often protest that I was right.  And be stubborn about it.  My mother would 
reply: "Sure.  You're right and the rest of the world is wrong."  How prophetic 
she was.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Hey Shemp - Here's something we'll both like

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07friedman.html?emc=eta1
>


Wonderful and inspiring.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

My favorite line from the article: 

"If this works," said Khosla, "coal-fired power would become more than 100 
percent clean. Not only would it not emit any CO2, but by producing clean water 
and cement as a byproduct it would also be taking all of the CO2 that goes into 
making those products out of the atmosphere."

Now, as you know, I don't buy into any of the CO2 hooey.  Indeed, I even feel 
that putting CO2 into the atmosphere has some good effects.

But if someone comes up with something like this then who can complain?

I suspect that the same process can be used for the tar sands in Alberta.  I 
keep reminding people here that the tar sands in Alberta have more oil than 
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the U.S., Iran, and Iraq have in proven reserves 
combined. But it is expensive and takes a lot of carbon burning to produce. If 
this technology can be used with the tar sands then 100% of oil can be gotten 
domestically.

I know, I know: Canada is a foreign country.  Yeah, technically.  But it's 
Canada and most Americans actually think it's like Puerto Rico any way: some 
sort of territory owned by Americans but not quite a state.  And if Quebec 
separates -- which could very well happen -- then Canada will disintegrate soon 
afterwards and Alberta -- the more American-friendly of the 10 provinces -- 
could very well join the U.S.  And then we'd have clean oil for the next 100 
years, all obtained domestically.

[FairfieldLife] Re: --- The most HOLY POEM ever written for Mankind !

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000"  
> wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest he respond?
> 
> Respond to WHAT? He knocked off some nookie. 
> So what? Are you suggesting he *owes* someone
> something?
> 



...and I don't know if anyone else noticed this on his "damage control" video 
statement but he did have the biggest smile on his face.  Half "the cat that 
ate the canary" smile and half "ooh, that felt good" smile (with just a touch 
of "it's nice to be Da King" thrown in for good measure).

I don't know anything about this guy or his movement but if he's NOT supposed 
to be a celibate then, hey, he should have a good time.




> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "lurkernomore20002000" 
> > >  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > BTW, for those that may be interested, here is a link to Swami 
> > > > Nithyananda's first response to his sex scandal.  I couldn't 
> > > > see where he was going to have a lot of wiggle room, and there's 
> > > > not much for him to say, except that what he did was not illegal.
> > > 
> > > Nor is there anything to apologize for. 
> > > 
> > > > I've read some of the reports coming out of India, that they 
> > > > are going to try to charge him with "cheating"
> > > 
> > > On whom? Are they going to call Lakshmi 
> > > or Parvati into court to say, "He done me
> > > wrong?" Or, even more interesting, do the
> > > same with Shiva? I can just see the big 
> > > blue guy standing up in court and saying,
> > > "Yeah, he was promised to *me*, and here
> > > I find him in bed with some hussy!"  :-)
> > >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Tiger incident corrected

[ShempMcGurk]

You've all got it wrong.

First of all, it wasn't a rifle that felled the great Tiger, it was a
shaft of iron.

And, secondly, it wasn't Nancy Cooke de Herrera's son, Rick, who
attacked the Tiger but this woman:








--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" geezerfreak@ wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "WillyTex" willytex@ wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > All anyone has to do is read the relevant
> > > > > passage. Obviously you haven't read the book,
> > > > > so, I don't know why you're opening your pie
> > > > > hole about Rick Cooke and the tiger episode.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's up with that?
> > > Joe:
> > > > You're really into "pie holes" today aren't you?
> > > >
> > > Why do almost all of your posts start with RE: and
> > > begin and end on one line, Joe?
> > >
> > > > What's up with that?
> > > >
> > > What's up with that?
> > >
> > I dunno Tex, it's just how I roll.
> >
> > Go figure.
> >
>
> What the big fuss?What ajoke.
>
> Rick did /do not shoot tiger since - and when then only with his photo
> camera for National Geographic-
>
> About the character of his mother: Her so called biographic account
> "Beyond Guru" speaks for itself-Don't we all agree with
> that?
>
> Is the shooting(motivation+intention+excuse+explaination) fuss
> discussion because we are in the year of tiger? [:D]
>
>
>
> Keep cool.Take it easy! Take it as.
>
> Why this has not been settled before? Plenty of possibilities:See
>
> 23 January 1974 - 10 February 1975: Wood Tree (Wu Xing) Tiger
>
> 9 February 1986 - 28 January 1987: Fire (Wu Xing) Tiger
>
> 28 January 1998 - 15 February 1999: Earth (Wu Xing) Tiger
>
> 15 February 2010 - 2 February 2011: Metal (Wu Xing) Tiger
>
> Hope until 2.Feb. this discussion will be gone and the so
> called"mystery" will be solved.
>
> More important seems to be aware of certain change in the movement
IMO!
>
> BTW without intention to start a new war and with the hope this will
> end here:
>
> Sad to say, but Barry's description of her fits all" insider movement"
> reaction toward her. So don't shoot the messenger, please
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: TM and sensitivity?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008 
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister no_reply@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > During the intro lectures TM teacher said something
> > like (paraphrasing) "TM won't make you cool as cucumber. In fact,
you might become more sensitive, but it won't affect your "self"
anymore."
> > As I've told before, I almost gave up learning TM when I heard that.
> >
> > (Or, that might have been during the group checking after initiation
> > in which case the previous sentence should be modified accordingly,
;)
> >
> > During the past few years I've noticed an "interesting" increase
> > in sensitivity. Namely, been occasionally using XZ hair oil (by
Berner, F-land) since the end of 60's. Only a few years back
> > noticed that applying that oil has a fairly strong soothing and
> > relaxing effect, I guess a bit like shirodhara(sp?) in AV.
> >
> > Furthermore, I've always been emotionally more sensitive than
> > most people I know, but lately have become almost painfully
> > that.
>
> Which could be a very good "thing" indeed !
> >
> > And several more sensitivities of body and mind...
> >
> > http://www.xz.fi/user_data/pix/uudet_tuotekuvat3/aito_oljyhoito.jpg
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: Spanish/Portuguese-speaking TM teachers needed in Latin America for initiating 2 million students

[ShempMcGurk]

Oh, Goody.  Another War of the Religions spectacle coming our way.

Time for the evangelical Latino community to come out of the woodwork and do 
their thing.

Although largely Catholic, evangelicals hold a significant spot in the Latin 
American religious community and they will, of course, look not too kindly upon 
this "encroachment" upon their territory.  Now, I don't know much about this 
latest TM mission in Latin America but as soon as I saw the numbers "2,000,000" 
I can only imagine that some unsuspecting Latin American politician or dictator 
(although there's not too many of those around these days in Latin America) 
decreed some sort of program in conjunction with a nutcase Rajah.  If that's 
the case, the inevitable "TM is a religion" and subsequent websites, etc. will 
crop up putting the Kabash on the whole thing quite quickly.

Sorry, I don't really want to sound so cynical and negative.  Indeed, 35 years 
ago I truly believed Maharishi could pull off things like this because the TMO 
did indeed present itself -- and, more importantly, conducted itself -- as a 
secular organisation dispensing a non-denominational mental technique that 
could pass the smell test of "we are not a religion" (yes, even with the puja, 
this test can be passed).

But the TMO has abandoned all that and gone the way of ships and shoes and 
ceiling wax and cabbages and KINGS.  And you can't have your cult and eat it, 
too.  Maharishi abandoned the secular route consciously and purposely.  You 
can't go back now. Oh, I suppose you can if you make some really, really MAJOR 
changes but that would require doing away with the trappings that have become 
the focal point of the TMO now: kooky hats, kings, yagyas with pundits, flying, 
MAPI products coming out the ying-yang, facing East fanaticisms, etc. etc.  And 
no one in the TMO is prepared for that.

So sit back and enjoy the show.  This Latin American folly will, sadly, go the 
way of the David Lynch Foundation's attempts to do anything in the public 
"separation of church and state" schools in America.  "Nada" as they say in 
Spanish.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Dick Mays  wrote:
>
> From: merlin
> Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2010 3:06 AM
> Subject: To Spanish/Portuguese-speaking TM teachers wanted for Latin America
> 
> 
> Spanish / Portugese speaking TM teachers needed in Latin America for 
> initiating 2 million students
> 
> 
> Dear Friends,
> 
> Our dear enlightened Raja Luis needs you for initiating about 2 
> million school kids and students in Latin America, if you speak 
> Spanish or Portuguese.  This is a great opportunity for you.
> 
> Do you remember about 30 years ago, Maharishiji told us, that there 
> will come a time when there will be so many initiations that the 
> teachers will flee into the forests?  This glorious time now has come 
> for you.
> 
> So please just fill out this form below and reply the mail to me at 
> vedamer...@...
> 
> Jai Guru Dev,
> 
> Michael Merlin
> 
> First name:
> Family name:
> Age:
> gender:
> Country:
> City:
> Email address:
> Telephone:
> Year you made TTC:
> Place:
> Languages you speak:
> How many months you can come:
> When you can come:
> Any questions:
> 
> P.S.   If you do not speak Spanish or Portuguese, then please help 
> find someone by forwarding this mail to some meditating friends or TM 
> teachers.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: What is Raj Raam's job description?

[ShempMcGurk]

Hey, do we yet know who the Missus is?

The woman Tony Nader Ramarama Who-Ha married?

And what her title is?  And les deux enfants?

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, merudanda  wrote:
>
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB  wrote:
> >
> > After replying to Buck earlier about the different
> > ways we saw the recently-posted video of Raj Raam
> > and Raja Hagelin   and Jerry, it occurred to me that
> > I'd really like to hear Raj Raam's *job description*.
> >Hi don't get upset (experimenting dude-wise:courtesy  of advise and
> credit to (Jai)John Manning)
> n
> > Is there an official, TMO-certified description of
> > who he is and what his duties are?
> 
> About the position and the function
> 
> of Maharaj Adhiraj Raja Ram (King Tony) and why he did not speak.
> 
>   It was explained (by Bevan )  that Maharaj Adhiraj Raja Ram was
> 
> "Leading from the field of Silence  this is
> 
> the Silent Administration - and this is Vedic leadership it was
> explained.
> 
> always the most silent level is nourishing and governing. Total
> knowledge, pure knowledge
> 
> is on the silent level"
> 
> -notes from the Global Family chat of Sunday,  Feb. 10, 2008 - reported
> by Dr.
> 
> Peter Swan, Minister of Communication
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SILENCE
> 
> SILENCE
> 
> SILENCE
> 
> Never occurred to anyone that the marriage of
> 
> Tony Abu Ali Dan Nadar, anointed as the first ruler of the Global
> Country of world peace
> 
> His Majesty Raja Nader Ram renamed  in 2000 by the Maharishi,
> 
> renamed Maharaja Dhiraaj Raja Ram
> 
> could been a predesigned coup and arrangement just to make sure that HE
> will get used to be quiet and silent. So to make sure HE dares not to
> speak up.
> 
> What a genius idea: In one stroke HE becomes mainstream and million
> followers without initiation 
> 
> "silent husband" has
> 
> 5,880,000 (and/or 9.910.000 )search hits
> 
> Here we need may be the charming Grand Lady Judy, the diamond stone
> (Stein), of this FFL DUDE RANCH(Barry speech/slang) to research.
> >
> > I'd sure love to read it if anyone knows of anything
> > like this.
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who on FFL disagrees with this?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings no_reply@
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > One of Raj Patel's main themes is that the new capital for the 21st
> > > century is going to be the capital of 'giving'. ie. He is saying
> that
> > > true wealth in the future will come from giving.
> > >
> > > Who on FairfieldLife would say 'no' to that philosophy for the 21st
> > > century? In essence, do you agree with this idea or not? If not,
> state
> > > in one sentence your alternative approach.
> > >
> > > OffWorld
> > >
> >
> >
> > I say "no" to that philosophy.
> >
> > The best way to allocate the scarce resources of the world in the
> fairest and most efficient way -- in particular and disproportionately
> in favor of the poorest of the world -- is through the selfishness and
> "me, firstness" of the unfettered free market.>>
> 
> Thanks for the honest answer, but your method will not work in the 21st
> century. Your method allocates resources to the biggest army only, and a
> few of their citizens and not to the most successful businesses as your
> free-market philosophy champions. Your method also fuels and perpetuates
> terrorism worldwide.  And the problem is, many people have the biggest
> army now, its called a nuclear bomb. So your greed will come back to
> bite you and leave the world devastated. So, no, your methods are the
> methods of the dark ages, not the 21st century.
> 
> Next please. (move along now Shemp, your kind are history, not part
> of the future.)
> 
> OffWorld
>

Again, the person who you supported for president, Ron Paul, agrees with me and 
disagrees with you.

Did you even bother to find out what he stood for before you became the 
fanatical supporter of his that you were?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Last chance America.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> Last chance America.
> Without reform you are bankrupt.
> Yes, Willytex, MDIXON,  and Shemp, you and your families will loose your
> job/income and go bankrupt. Healthcare costs this country too much. It
> is dragging the economy into an abyss.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtZLvFrl6qk&feature=ytn%3Amptnews
> 
> 
> We Brits will be just fine though.
> 
> OffWorld
>


What does your hero -- your fanatical choice for president -- Ron Paul feel 
about the healthcare issue, Off_World?

Gee, let me guess: he's closer to Willytex and MDixon and eons away from you.

And, gosh, I never heard back from you when I supplied that youtube of Ron Paul 
saying how AGW was a crock...what happened to you?  

Hiding?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Who on FFL disagrees with this?

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings  wrote:
>
> 
> One of Raj Patel's main themes is that the new capital for the 21st
> century is going to be the capital of 'giving'. ie. He is saying that
> true wealth in the future will come from giving.
> 
> Who on FairfieldLife would say 'no' to that philosophy for the 21st
> century? In essence, do you agree with this idea or not? If not, state
> in one sentence your alternative approach.
> 
> OffWorld
>


I say "no" to that philosophy.

The best way to allocate the scarce resources of the world in the fairest and 
most efficient way -- in particular and disproportionately in favor of the 
poorest of the world -- is through the selfishness and "me, firstness" of the 
unfettered free market.

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Magic" Alex speaks about MMY/Rishikesh

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 4:50 PM, ShempMcGurk wrote:
> 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Joe wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I gather that this statement from Alex Mardas is in reaction to an 
> > > > earlier NY Times article about the Beatles and MMY.
> > > > 
> > > > I note that his memory regarding dates of the Rishikesh course is a 
> > > > little fuzzy, but this is the first statement I've seen from him since 
> > > > the late 60s. The section of the statement dealing with MMY starts on 
> > > > page 7.
> > > > 
> > > > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/Mardas.pdf
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Interesting Geez. This means that Chopra's and George Harrison's gloss 
> > > about 'what really happened on the Rishikesh TTC' is somewhat moot, no?
> > >
> > 
> > Uh, no, Vaj. It's the other way around. That would mean that George 
> > Harrison's rendition of what really happened would make Magic Alex's 
> > rendition somewhat moot. 
> 
> How's that? Please explain.
> 


If my choice is between Magic Alex's version of what George Harrison saw and 
said versus George Harrison's version of what George Harrison saw, I'd say 
George Harrison's version of is more credible.  That's why I said it's the 
other way around.  Plus the lessening of credibility for Alex because of his 
getting the time line wrong.


> They weren't doing LSD as claimed. And he witnessed a "pass" on some female 
> student. MMY didn't deny it, but only said "he was human". 
> 
> At least he was honest.
> 
> > 
> > And this isn't a defense of Maharishi; I don't give a flying f*** whether 
> > he bonked Mia Farrow and all those babes that Rick has been unstressing on 
> > for the last decade and a half 'cause my TM will or will not work 
> > regardless. But Alex's credibility is diminished by two things in my eyes: 
> > (1) his screwing up on the length of time he and the Beatles were in 
> > Rishikesh; and (2) his claim about the output of music.
> 
> I wasn't there, so I don't know how long he was there, so it's not for me to 
> say. It did sound too long. I just assumed it was a hastily written 
> statement, a sort of "catch up" to the various defamations which had taken 
> place while he was out of touch in Greece (or wherever). But I do know the 
> Beatles did compose a lot of great music after they left his influence, esp. 
> solo works like Imagine. However the counterclaim could easily be made that 
> their experience of TM, and perhaps Saraswati, continued to inspire their 
> music for the rest of their lives!
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Magic" Alex speaks about MMY/Rishikesh

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend"  wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe"  wrote:
> >
> > I gather that this statement from Alex Mardas is in reaction to an earlier 
> > NY Times article about the Beatles and MMY.
> > 
> > I note that his memory regarding dates of the Rishikesh course is a little 
> > fuzzy, but this is the first statement I've seen from him since the late 
> > 60s. The section of the statement dealing with MMY starts on page 7.
> > 
> > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/Mardas.pdf
> 
> Bizarre.
> 
> It isn't just his memory regarding dates that's faulty.
> Here's the last paragraph of the statement:
> 
> "As for the allegation that, had it not been for their break
> up from the Maharishi, the Beatles would have been more
> prolific in their creative output and remained as a group or
> longer. I am not an expert musician, but I do note that some
> of the best music ever composed by them was composed after
> their return from the Ashram, for example their most famous 
> song, 'Imagine' and 'Hey Jude'."
>

I found that last paragraph bizarre also but for the following reason: I 
remember seeing a Derek (Derek Taylor?) who was later or is still now a 
higher-up in Apple being interviewed and his comment was something to the 
effect that during the Beatles' stay in Rishikesh that they had a prolific 
output of composition and music.  I had heard that claim made somewhere else as 
well.

And, yes, the lengths of time Alex claims he and the Beatles were there sound 
way offtoo long.

[FairfieldLife] Re: "Magic" Alex speaks about MMY/Rishikesh

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj  wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 6, 2010, at 2:44 PM, Joe wrote:
> 
> > I gather that this statement from Alex Mardas is in reaction to an earlier 
> > NY Times article about the Beatles and MMY.
> > 
> > I note that his memory regarding dates of the Rishikesh course is a little 
> > fuzzy, but this is the first statement I've seen from him since the late 
> > 60s. The section of the statement dealing with MMY starts on page 7.
> > 
> > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/arts/Mardas.pdf
> 
> 
> Interesting Geez. This means that Chopra's and George Harrison's gloss about 
> 'what really happened on the Rishikesh TTC' is somewhat moot, no?
>

Uh, no, Vaj.  It's the other way around.  That would mean that George 
Harrison's rendition of what really happened would make Magic Alex's rendition 
somewhat moot.  

And this isn't a defense of Maharishi; I don't give a flying f*** whether he 
bonked Mia Farrow and all those babes that Rick has been unstressing on for the 
last decade and a half 'cause my TM will or will not work regardless.  But 
Alex's credibility is diminished by two things in my eyes: (1) his screwing up 
on the length of time he and the Beatles were in Rishikesh; and (2) his claim 
about the output of music.

[FairfieldLife] Re: Live TM Theatre

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, nablusoss1008  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck"  wrote:
> > In that room on the video, a few characters stand out but none able to say, 
> >  "This is what we are, for these reasons this is where we are going, and 
> > this is how we are going to do it."  Consistently in less than a paragraph. 
> >   The last part of that last sentence in the video started to be that.  
> > "That it is based on our spiritual experience, with this that we go 
> > forward".  He was just getting his tongue around it as his part in the 
> > video ended.  
> > 
> > The video is a fascinating picture of TM in time.  That is what i see in 
> > watching it from FF.  It will be interesting to see when they pull it down 
> > from the net.
> > 
> > -Buck
> 
> Maharishi created the TMO Himself, it's His offspring. But from time to time 
> he would ask almost disbelieving; who wants to work in administration ? As if 
> He could not believe that someone wanted these positions.
> 
> If you think only for a fraction of a second that the fellows who are running 
> the Movement today are closest to Maharishi's heart please think again. Only 
> a few of these souls have a fainth idea of what Maharishi did, and is 
> continuing to do today for the inhabitants of this planet.
> 
> He alone created Heaven on this Earth. Singlehandedly but based on a cosmic 
> timing. 
> 
> He did not need a TMO, it was created for the evolution of certain 
> individuals. 
> 
> If the TMO is a joke to you I'm pretty sure Maharishi would agree.
>


An observation and a question for His Nabbiness:

I find it amusing that Maharishi held on to the reins of micromanagement almost 
to the last day of his life.  If you'll recall, only about a month or two 
before his death he released a statement saying that he was giving up the day 
to day administration of the TMO and would now be devoting his time to the 
study of the Vedas (or something like that).  He LIVED to micromanage the TMO 
and I believe this obsession of his contributed to the failure of the Movement.

An anecdote that I believe I've shared before here points that out.  On my 6 
month course (perhaps Barry will remember this) at one point we had a course 
picture taken.  But before it was sent to Maharishi to see, a course 
participant, Michael Yankaus, who was a designer or artist or something, on his 
own initiative, did a tracing of everyone in the group photo on a separate 
piece of paper, numbered each body traced, and then had a legend at the bottom 
of the name of each person and the country they represented.  It was all quite 
beautiful and ornate...and I think he had it mounted on a canvass, framed, 
along with the group photo. It was worthy of a Super Bowl Winning Team 
collectible.

Well, when Maharishi saw it, he was over the moon.  He thought is was such a 
great thing that he issued an edict that, from now on, ALL courses would have 
group photos done like this.  Instructions were drawn up and, if I'm not 
mistaken, Maharishi even had a broshure prepared and printed that had all the 
rules and instructions for how this was to be done.

What struck me was how much time Maharishi devoted to this AND deemed it 
necessary for his "troops" and course participants to devote to this.  Curious, 
I thought, that someone with a world plan could get diverted so easily and go 
off on a tangent on something that, relative to what he boldly wanted to 
accomplish (the spiritual regeneration of ALL mankind!), was of the most 
trivial value.

But I learned that this incident in a way perfectly represented one of 
Maharishi's great shortcomings: his propensity to micromanage and NOT be able 
to see the forest for the trees.

My question to Nabby (unrelated to the above): how do you feel about Maharishi 
appointing his blood relatives (e.g. Girish) to positions of importance in the 
Movement?

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rachel Maddow gets arrested as Al Qaeda sympathizer !!!

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> She hails from Castro Valley in the SF Bay Area where my sister lives 
> and about 30 miles from me.  I keep forgetting to ask if my sister knows 
> the family.
> 


No, no, I'm pretty sure she's from Lesbos.


> ShempMcGurk wrote:
> > Actually, Maddow is neither of Irish nor Russian heritage.
> >
> > She's Greek.  
> >
> > She hails from one of those beautiful islands in the Aegean Sea.  The 
> > Island of Lesbos, I believe.
> >
> >
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Joe or Barry - Linda Davis

[ShempMcGurk]

Does anyone remember a "Monica Walstrom" from MIU in the '70s?  
Swedish-American art major?  Her major complaint was that Maharishi didn't 
allow any nude models in art class...

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> Did either of you know Linda Davis back in the day? She used to go with Bob
> Doane. She was a good friend of my wife's and we've been trying for years to
> track her down. We heard she worked for Jackson Browne for a while. I wonder
> if Joe with his music connections would know anyone who knows where she is,
> or if she's still alive.
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Rachel Maddow gets arrested as Al Qaeda sympathizer !!!

[ShempMcGurk]

Actually, Maddow is neither of Irish nor Russian heritage.

She's Greek.  

She hails from one of those beautiful islands in the Aegean Sea.  The Island of 
Lesbos, I believe.




--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "do.rflex"  wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "It's just a ride" 
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM, do.rflex  wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > > http://vodpod.com/watch/3174087-rachel-maddow-on-liz-cheney
> > >
> > >
> > That was funny.  But isn't Rachael Jewish?  Wouldn't that mean the State of
> > Israel is Al Quaeda?
> >
> 
> 
> FWIW . . .
> 
> 
> Q: Is Rachel Maddow Jewish?
> 
> 
> A: No She is not Jewish.
> Her Mother is from Canada and is of Irish decent, and her Father of Russian 
> descent. Rachel Maddow was raised as a Catholic.
> 
> On the January 28, 2010 episode of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, Maddow 
> said she was "distantly" Jewish during an interview with Tracey Ullman. 
> 
> http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Rachel_Maddow_Jewish
>

[FairfieldLife] Re: Janis Joplin's Original Band, Big Brother and the Holding Company In Fairfield, Iowa

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"  
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk"  wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how many of the original members are in this 2010 version.
> 
> When we were at MIU remember the rumor that Susy Levin had sung with Big 
> Brother before Janis?
> 



No, I don't...but it's a great one.

I do remember you playing the harmonica, though.




> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Of the 5 original Beachboys, how many beside Mike Love still tour?  Or is 
> > it just Mike?
> > 
> > At least with "The Who" you've got 50% of the members still alive (Pete 
> > Townsend and Roger Daltry) although, for my money, the group died with 
> > Keith Moon.
> > 
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE: Janis Joplin's Original Band, Big Brother and 
> > > The Holding Company in Fairfield, Iowa on Thursday the 15th of April at 
> > > the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center.
> > >  
> > > On Thursday the 15th of April, Simple Man Enterprises Presents Janis 
> > > Joplin's Original Band, Big Brother and the Holding Company, with BMA 
> > > nominee, Blusion artist, Eddie "Devilboy" Turner at the Fairfield Arts 
> > > and Convention Center in Fairfield, Iowa. Tickets are $22 in advanced, 
> > > with a percentage of the proceeds going to the SME music scholarship fund 
> > > for area high school students. Last years scholarship was given to Andrew 
> > > Powers of Fort Madison, Ia.
> > > The doors open at 6:30pm and the show starts at 7:30pm. This is a one 
> > > time show and tickets are limited.   
> > >  
> > > Big Brother and The Holding Company( www.bbhc.com/ )are primarily 
> > > remembered as the group that gave Janis Joplin her start. But Big Brother 
> > > also occupies a significant place in the history of San Francisco 
> > > psychedelic rock, as one of the bands that best captured the era's 
> > > loosest, reckless, and indulgent qualities in its high-energy mutations 
> > > of blues and folk-rock.
> > > 
> > > Big Brother was formed in 1965 in the Haight-Ashbury; by the time Joplin 
> > > joined in mid-1966, the lineup was and still is(with the exception of the 
> > > late James Gurley, who just passed away in December), Sam Andrew and 
> > > James Gurley on guitar, Peter Albin on bass, and David Getz on drums. 
> > > BBHC currently tours with a new guitar player and talented female 
> > > vocalist. 
> > > 
> > > Big Brother catapulted themselves into national attention with their 
> > > performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in June 1967, particularly with 
> > > Joplin's galvanizing interpretation of "Ball and Chain" (which was a 
> > > highlight of the film of the event). High-powered management and record 
> > > label bids rolled in immediately, but unfortunately the group had tied 
> > > themselves up in a bad contract with the small Mainstream label, at a 
> > > time where they were stranded on the road and needed cash. Their one 
> > > Mainstream album (released in 1967), contains some of their stronger 
> > > cuts, such as "Down on Me" and "Coo Coo." It didn't fully capture the 
> > > band's strengths, and with the help of new high-powered manager Albert 
> > > Grossman (also handler of Bob Dylan, The Band and Peter, Paul & Mary), 
> > > they extricated themselves from the Mainstream deal and signed with 
> > > Columbia.
> > > 
> > > The Big Brother album for Columbia that featured Joplin, Cheap Thrills 
> > > (1968), Celebrated its 40th Anniversary 2 years ago. It was assembled 
> > > from both studio sessions and live material. Cheap Thrills went to number 
> > > one when it was finally released, and though it too was an erratic 
> > > affair, it contained some of the best moments of acid rock's glory days, 
> > > including "Ball and Chain," "Summertime," "Combination of the Two," and 
> > > "Piece of My Heart." 
> > > 
> > > Cheap Thrills made Big Brother superstars. By the end of 1968, Joplin had 
> > > decided to go solo, a move from which neither she nor Big Brother ever 
> > > fully recovered. Big Brother and the Holding Company still tour today on 
> > > rare occasions and they bring with them an extremely talented female 
&

[FairfieldLife] Re: Janis Joplin's Original Band, Big Brother and the Holding Company In Fairfield, Iowa

[ShempMcGurk]

I wonder how many of the original members are in this 2010 version.

Of the 5 original Beachboys, how many beside Mike Love still tour?  Or is it 
just Mike?

At least with "The Who" you've got 50% of the members still alive (Pete 
Townsend and Roger Daltry) although, for my money, the group died with Keith 
Moon.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> 
> IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE: Janis Joplin's Original Band, Big Brother and The 
> Holding Company in Fairfield, Iowa on Thursday the 15th of April at the 
> Fairfield Arts and Convention Center.
>  
> On Thursday the 15th of April, Simple Man Enterprises Presents Janis Joplin's 
> Original Band, Big Brother and the Holding Company, with BMA nominee, Blusion 
> artist, Eddie "Devilboy" Turner at the Fairfield Arts and Convention Center 
> in Fairfield, Iowa. Tickets are $22 in advanced, with a percentage of the 
> proceeds going to the SME music scholarship fund for area high school 
> students. Last years scholarship was given to Andrew Powers of Fort Madison, 
> Ia.
> The doors open at 6:30pm and the show starts at 7:30pm. This is a one time 
> show and tickets are limited.   
>  
> Big Brother and The Holding Company( www.bbhc.com/ )are primarily remembered 
> as the group that gave Janis Joplin her start. But Big Brother also occupies 
> a significant place in the history of San Francisco psychedelic rock, as one 
> of the bands that best captured the era's loosest, reckless, and indulgent 
> qualities in its high-energy mutations of blues and folk-rock.
> 
> Big Brother was formed in 1965 in the Haight-Ashbury; by the time Joplin 
> joined in mid-1966, the lineup was and still is(with the exception of the 
> late James Gurley, who just passed away in December), Sam Andrew and James 
> Gurley on guitar, Peter Albin on bass, and David Getz on drums. BBHC 
> currently tours with a new guitar player and talented female vocalist. 
> 
> Big Brother catapulted themselves into national attention with their 
> performance at the Monterey Pop Festival in June 1967, particularly with 
> Joplin's galvanizing interpretation of "Ball and Chain" (which was a 
> highlight of the film of the event). High-powered management and record label 
> bids rolled in immediately, but unfortunately the group had tied themselves 
> up in a bad contract with the small Mainstream label, at a time where they 
> were stranded on the road and needed cash. Their one Mainstream album 
> (released in 1967), contains some of their stronger cuts, such as "Down on 
> Me" and "Coo Coo." It didn't fully capture the band's strengths, and with the 
> help of new high-powered manager Albert Grossman (also handler of Bob Dylan, 
> The Band and Peter, Paul & Mary), they extricated themselves from the 
> Mainstream deal and signed with Columbia.
> 
> The Big Brother album for Columbia that featured Joplin, Cheap Thrills 
> (1968), Celebrated its 40th Anniversary 2 years ago. It was assembled from 
> both studio sessions and live material. Cheap Thrills went to number one when 
> it was finally released, and though it too was an erratic affair, it 
> contained some of the best moments of acid rock's glory days, including "Ball 
> and Chain," "Summertime," "Combination of the Two," and "Piece of My Heart." 
> 
> Cheap Thrills made Big Brother superstars. By the end of 1968, Joplin had 
> decided to go solo, a move from which neither she nor Big Brother ever fully 
> recovered. Big Brother and the Holding Company still tour today on rare 
> occasions and they bring with them an extremely talented female vocalist, who 
> never lets you forget who Big Brother and the Holding Company are. 
>  
> Also filling the bill, is national Blusion recording artists(Northern Blues 
> Records) and Blues Music Award nominee, Eddie "Devilboy" Turner( 
> www.eddiedevilboy.com   ). 
>   
> "If you're seeking a guitar player that can channel the spirit of Jimi 
> Hendrix then look no further than Eddie Turner."
> "If anybody ever went down to the Crossroads and let the Devil tune his
> guitar it was probably Eddie Turner. Man, you get chills every time the guy
> strikes a note! And the expressions he makes while he's talking out each
> lick leave one convinced he's channelling other-worldly ancestral demi-gods."
>  
> “Otherworldly”, “scorching”, “polyrhythmic” and “chilling” 
> have all been used to describe Eddie Turner’s guitar playing. His ethereal 
> style is an amalgam of the Afro-Cuban rhythms of his heritage and the music 
> that influenced him as a teenager: Chicago blues, jazz, r&b and psychedelic 
> rock. The Cuban-born singer/guitarist cut his teeth in several rock bands 
> contributing what Slate magazine describes as “spacey-yet-resounding 
> solos.” He emerged for the first time as his own bandleader on Rise, which 
> arrived at stores in February, 2005. 
> Eddie “devilboy " Turner picked up his first guitar, a candy apple 
> mult

[FairfieldLife] What do beached whales and global warming have in common?

[ShempMcGurk]

Both phenomenon occurred long before man started polluting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beached_whale#Natural

[FairfieldLife] Re: Financial Scam - Beware

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer"  wrote:
>
> From a friend:
>  
> Rick,
> 
> You may want to forward this to any friends who might be tempted into this
> scam.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sharon
> 
> -- Forwarded Message
> From: Bart Walton 
> Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 19:16:05 -0800
> To: Bart Walton 
> Subject: Financial Scam - Beware
> 
> If you are asked to contribute to a financial "trading platform", ultimately
> to be used for the benefit of the T.M. Movement, don't get involved. I've
> been told from a reliable source that this is a scam. The meditators
> involved in the fund raising are sincere and honest. But the next tier of
> operators are scam artists and the money is going into a black hole. Beware!
> 
> 
> If you want to donate to the Movement, please make your contributions
> directly to MUM, your local center or some other branch of the Movement
> directly. But not through anyone involved in a mysterious financial deal
> that promises huge returns.
> 
> Thank you, BW
>


Yes.

Write your check directly to "Girish Varma" and rest assured it will go 
directly to Movement activities.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The word "socialist": be afraid, be very, very afraid.

[ShempMcGurk]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu  wrote:
>
> ShempMcGurk wrote:
> >
> > So I think a better explanation of the paying for and maintaining of a 
> > police and fire department through taxes is just that: taxation for the 
> > general welfare.
> >   
> 
> So then you aren't opposed to paying taxes for free health care?   That 
> promotes the general welfare.



I am opposed to any kind of governmental intervention in health.


>  Do you participate in Arizona's health 
> care program.



As I wrote here in the past, I used to participate in Arizona's universal 
health care program for the self-employed (everyone accepted, even with 
pre-existing conditions) but don't anymore.





>  If so then it would be hypocritical of you to criticize a 
> similar program for the entire nation.
> 



If I'm in prison I'll still eat at the prison cafeteria.




> And should we be paying taxes for the general welfare of non-citizens 
> such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq?




Let them eat hummus.





>  Last I looked those weren't US 
> states though there are probably some US corporations that want them 
> that way so they can get at the old.
> > But it isn't socialism.
> >   
> 
> But you and other wingnuts here keep calling government health care 
> "socialism" as you do a number of other things.   I think what you are 
> actually against is "communism" not  socialism.
>

No, I'm against both.  But I will partake of any socialistic or otherwise 
government program if available to me.

As for your insulting of my by calling me a "wingnut", well, that makes you 
sound very un-Bhairitu like.