Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* OT: Europe Passes USA? Does this mean anything in "real" terms? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fa016f5fa06714cb?hl=en
* Mens Leather Coat - size 46 - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a6f609a1d17fae32?hl=en
* cheap text printer - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d0bda871aec2554e?hl=en
* Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money. - 12 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think - 5 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* For more related products , please go to our online items www. ecshop365 .
com - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5c6661cf0f85b98c?hl=en
* the Price of Marijuana to come down. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49f81ea069abe782?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Europe Passes USA? Does this mean anything in "real" terms?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fa016f5fa06714cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 2:58 pm
From: Dennis J

hey, "Iceberg" <iceberg.rules@googlemail.com>'s been through solid
matter, for crying out loud. Who knows what's happened to his brain?
Maybe it's scrambled his molecules...

>"honkifyoulovejustice" <the.tick.honkifyoulovejustice@gmail.com> wrote in
>message
>news:b5ca2767-3421-4fbd-a459-052125bdf3f0@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 7, 9:12 am, Google Beta User <wanyik...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> http://quotes.stocknod.com/stocknod/?GUID=10077248&Page=MediaViewer&C...
>>>
>>> Basically, Europe is "wealther" than the USA for the first time since
>>> World War I.
>>>
>>> In real terms, standard of living, culture, health of it's citizens,
>>> etc. what's the implication?
>>
>> The implication is that spending more on defense than all other
>> countries in the world combined gets stupider and stupider every year,
>> and if we don't stop, Europe will drink red wine and eat cheese on our
>> political grave.
>
>an hilarious notion.

Dammit.. learn English... the H isn't silent in Hilarious, therefore
it is a hilarious notion. and it a Historic blunder when the Buffoons
at News Corp try to change it.

"the Democrat and Republican parties are destroying our country right now,
They're destroying our political process." -- Jesse Ventura

"Education is the progressive discovery of our own Ignorance" Will Durant

"One can't have a sense of perspective without a sense of Humor" -- Wayne Thiboux

"the Glass is not only half full, it has been delicious so far!!" -- ME

To reply, SCRAPE off the end bits.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mens Leather Coat - size 46
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a6f609a1d17fae32?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 4:01 pm
From: ClothesOut

I'm selling a mens distressed leather coat. eBay auction ends tomorrow
afternoon and the current bid is $49.99. Take a look. If you're not
interested, consider passing the word along to someone else. To read
the full description and see photos, go to item #300354130314.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 4:01 pm
From: ClothesOut

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cheap text printer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d0bda871aec2554e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 5:50 pm
From: jeff

Girlfriend is in need of a cheap printer for archiving office
documents. Won't need to worry about color quality. Won't need high
volume or speed. Availability and cost of black cartridges is an issue.
So is the cost of the printer and to some extent the size. The old
printer is getting retired because the ink is too hard to find.

Whose got a recommendation? There's a slew of brands out there. I've
been disappointed in Lexmark and pleased with HP (D7160) myself, but
everyone makes lemons.

Jeff

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 8:38 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <ham1d8$ab8$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:
> Girlfriend is in need of a cheap printer for archiving office
>documents. Won't need to worry about color quality. Won't need high
>volume or speed. Availability and cost of black cartridges is an issue.
>So is the cost of the printer and to some extent the size. The old
>printer is getting retired because the ink is too hard to find.

> Whose got a recommendation? There's a slew of brands out there. I've
>been disappointed in Lexmark and pleased with HP (D7160) myself, but
>everyone makes lemons.

I have a Brother monochrome laser printer which is inexpensive ($250 from
Office Depot), and the toner cartridges are reasonable.

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
"Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless,
hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of
woodworking.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:15 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<ham1d8$ab8$1@news.albasani.net>,
jeff <jeff_thies@att.net> wrote:

> Girlfriend is in need of a cheap printer for archiving office
> documents. Won't need to worry about color quality. Won't need high
> volume or speed. Availability and cost of black cartridges is an issue.
> So is the cost of the printer and to some extent the size. The old
> printer is getting retired because the ink is too hard to find.
>
> Whose got a recommendation? There's a slew of brands out there. I've
> been disappointed in Lexmark and pleased with HP (D7160) myself, but
> everyone makes lemons.
>
> Jeff

Go to craigslist and post a listing in
wanted

Join freecycle and ask for one

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Detroit groids line up for "stimulation" money.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01325954ae00638a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:04 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:16 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>>> my problem.
> >>>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
> >>>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
> >>>> paramount. Deal with it.
> >>> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
> >>> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
> >> A union of individual states, not a collective.
>
> > yawn,
> > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
> > Union,
>
> The union refers to the union of states. Those states still exist as
> individual political entities.
>

it says we the people in order to form, federal law trumps state law,
the constitution of the united states of america, shall be the supreme
law of the land. so the union is we the people under the constitution
of the united states of america.

> > establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
> > common defense, promote the general Welfare,
>
> Does not mean to provide goods and services.
>

starving people are fed goods and services. starving people are
unconstitutional. after all its plainly stated to provide for the
general welfare.

> >>>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
> >>>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
> >>>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
> >>>>> rights.
> >>>> A corporation is a legal person.
> >>> a corporation is a collective,
> >> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
> >> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
> >> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
> >> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
> >> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
> >> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>
> > yawn,
>
> Close your mouth, felcher.
>

your response means i got you:) yes, corporations are collectives,
where everyone involved pulls for the same thing, a classic definition
of a collective:)

>
>
> >>>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
> >>>>> of others." You think?
> >>>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
> >>> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
> >>> corporations to exist in the first place.
> >> No, not the government.
>
> > then what, santa claus. corporate collectives
>
> No such thing.
>

then where do corprorate collectives get their right to exist from.

> >>>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
> >>>>> grants from governments.
> >>>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
> >>> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
> >>> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
> >>> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
> >>> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
> >> End the subsidy.
>
> > snicker, sure you will:)
>
> I personally can't do that, but it's my position.
>

hey, you still profit from it i bet. i bet you are in the markets
today, even as its been proven that since 1989, markets have been held
up, and goosed by the federal tax payer dollars. i bet you cashed in
lots of profits off of your federal subsidy. i bet you are in the
markets even today, slopping up your welfare, and squealing that no
one else deserves it.

> >>> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
> >> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>
> > yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
>
> Profit comes from operating a business that brings in more revenue that
> is spent in costs.
>

the first part of your statement is correct, the rest? most american
business's get some sort of subsidy, without it, there would be a lot
less profit.

>
>
> >>>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
> >>> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
> >> It's not stupid.
>
> >>>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
> >>>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
> >>>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
> >>>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
> >>>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
> >>>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
> >>> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
> >> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>
> > if it walks like
>
> You committed a logical fallacy.
>

hey, if you walk like a duck, do not be to surprised if you are
called one, pretty simple stuff.

> >>>>> I don't have the right to
> >>>>> clean air and water?
> >>>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
> >>> that is not what the constitution says.
> >> It is.
>
> > where does it say that? however it says this:)
>
> > The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
> > Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
> > Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
>
> "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the material
> welfare of individual persons.
>

sure it does, if people are dying and starving in the streets, that
is not providing for the general welfare of the country.

> >>> it says to promote and
> >>> provide for the general welfare of americans.
> >> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>
> > sure it does,
>
> It doesn't.
>

idiotology is no excuse for your stupidity.

> >>>>> What are you saying?
> >>>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
> >>> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
> >> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
> >> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>
> > by embracing the useless eater theory,
>
> No one has a "right" to food that obliges me or anyone else to provide
> it to him at our expense.
>

sig heil!!!

> >> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>
> > hey,
>
> It's just a swearword coming from stupid cocksuckers.
>

if it walks like a duck.

> >>>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
> >>>>> make it easier.
> >>>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
> >>>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
> >>>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
> >>>> that's too bad for them.
> >>> yea, let the humans die.
> >> Everyone dies.
>
> > dig that hole ever deeper.
>
> Not a refutation, cocksucker.
>

it must be getting dark down there.

> >>> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
> >>>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
> >>>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
> >>>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
> >>>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
> >>> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
> >>> authority,
> >> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
> >> should be.
>
> > then you are unamerican.
>
> I am, of course, the quintessential American, *specifically* for holding
> that belief.
>

we fought a war to make the world civilized. we beat you once, we
will beat you again.

> >>>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
> >>>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
> >>> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
> >> No.
>
> > never give up the hope for a new fuehrer
>
> I never had any hope for a führer. I don't believe in führers.
>

just the strongman who will keep them poor blacks away from your home
hey:)

> Hey, how do you like that Kenyan führer you've got going?
>

last time i checked, he was elected.

> >>>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
> >>>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
> >>>>> increases,
> >>>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
> >>>> shoot him dead.
> >>> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
> >> Not what I said.
>
> > sure it was
>
> No, it wasn't.
>

you words are powerful.

> >>>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
> >>>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
> >>>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
> >>>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
> >>>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
> >>>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
> >>> you can lack empathy,
> >> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
> >> feel it.
>
> > psychopaths
>
> You're one.

i am not boarded up in my home with a gun ready to shoot poor people.

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:16 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>> tt
> >>>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
> >>>>> ignorant.
> >>>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
> >>> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
> >>> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
> >> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>
> >> You're just a liar.
>
> > then what are they?
>
> Not for profit, you stupid fuck.
>

there are no for profit schools huh?

National Independent Private School Association
Organization for operators of for-profit private schools in the United
States.
www.nipsa.org/

> >>>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
> >>>> No.
> >>> yes.
> >> No.
>
> > yes.
>
> No.
>

yes.

> >>>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
> >>>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
> >>> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
> >> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
> >> wage you might wish.
>
> > that is a childish statement.
>
> It isn't. It's a statement of reality, *and* a well conceived moral
> prescription.
>

lacking morals is the correct terminology.

> >>>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
> >>>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
> >>>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
> >>>> everything else in their lives...
> >>> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
> >> No.
>
> > sure they did.
>
> No. You believe bullshit, fuckwit.
>

there was a reason for the pure food and drug act idiot.

> >>>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
> >>>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
> >>>> there.
> >>> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
> >> Yes.
>
> > hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
> > illinois were innocent and black.
>
> No, it wasn't.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i suppose in your world view, they let a bunch of poor guilty blacks
go correct:)

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:23 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:08 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 10:23 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> >>> dog.com> wrote:
> >>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>>>>>> tt
> >>>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
> >>>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> >>>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> >>>>>>> murdering him.
> >>>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
> >>>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
> >>>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
> >>>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
> >>>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
> >>>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
> >>>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
> >>>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
> >>>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
> >>>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
> >>>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
> >>>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> >>>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> >>>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> >>>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
> >>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>>> my problem.
> >>>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> >>>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> >>>>>>> fully sink in.
> >>>>>> It likely never will.
> >>>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
> >>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
> >>>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
> >>>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
> >>>>>> if you believe that.
> >>>>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
> >>>>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
> >>>> You been eating moldy bread.....?
> >>> we have been thru this before.
> >> You got it wrong then, too.
>
> > i am sure that
>
> Most of what you are sure about is bullshit.
>

nothing you have refuted so far.

> >>> read the declaration, preamble, and
> >>> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
> >> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>
> > We the People of the United States,
>
> The Bill of Rights acknowledges individual rights; it does not "give"
> rights.
>

if you are a american you get those rights. its not handed out to
individuals, its handed out to we the people.

> >>> to the people, not
> >>> person, people.
> >> Individual persons.
>
> > its says we the people,
>
> The rights are held by individuals.
>

individuals make up a collective. its called we the people.

> >>>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
> >>>> the people.
> >>> correct, people, not person, but people.
> >> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>
> > it says the people,
>
> The rights are held by individuals. Rights cannot be held by a collective.
>

the rights are held by the people. corporations are collectives
outside of the constitution, and should have no rights.

> >>> but the bill of rights is
> >>> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
> >>> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
> >>> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>
> > missed one hey,
>
> "Provide for the general welfare" in no way means to provide goods and
> services.
>

really, and to work for profits does not mean work for profits,
correct?

> >>>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
> >>>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
> >>> that is a collective right,
> >> It is not.
>
> > it is so.
>
> No.
>

then not all americans have the right of free speech? where does it
say that?

> >>>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
> >>>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
> >>>> when we can just be one collective.
> >>> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
> >>> rights,
> >> States do not have rights.
>
> > correct,
>
> Yes, of course.
>
> >> States have powers.
>
> > correct, limited,
>
> No. The statement "States have power" is not limited. The powers are
> limited; the statement is not.
>

their powers are limited to what the constitution allows them, at the
moment.

> >> People
>
> > gotcha:)
>
> You don't even have a grip on your own tiny pencil dick.
>

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, mommy, he caught me.

> >> - individual
> >> persons - have rights.
>
> > as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people,
>
> People as individual persons - not a collective.
>

it does not say we the individual, it says we the people.

> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
> perpetuity.

that is your personal opinion, and a crank one at that.

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:27 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:09 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 9:05 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 7:54 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>>>>>>>> tt
> >>>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
> >>>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
> >>>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
> >>>>>>> murdering him.
> >>>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
> >>>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
> >>>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
> >>>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
> >>>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
> >>>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
> >>>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
> >>>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
> >>>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
> >>>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
> >>>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
> >>>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
> >>>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
> >>>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
> >>>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
> >>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
> >>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
> >>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
> >>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
> >>>>>> my problem.
> >>>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
> >>>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
> >>>>>>> fully sink in.
> >>>>>> It likely never will.
> >>>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
> >>>>>>> wrong.
> >>>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
> >>>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
> >>>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
> >>>>>> if you believe that.
> >>>>> the founders were collectivists,
> >>>> Absolutely they were not.
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
> >>> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
> >>> statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that
> >> ...does not contain the word "collectivism", nor does it state any
> >> collective purpose.
>
> >> I'm glad we got /that/ settled.
>
> > we did not,
>
> We did. It's settled. There is no collective purpose, because there is
> no collective. There are only *individual* persons acting in concert.
> That does not create a collective.

thank you for providing me with the official definition of a
collective, people acting in concert for the same goal:)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:collective&ei=xJDOSoS7CNaz8QaXsJzxBg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE

corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together;
"a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:30 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:28 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 11:08 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
> > perpetuity.
>
> This is why I will argue with people of this ilk for only so long.
>
> "You are wrong." This signals that the writer believes himself right.
> "You're also stupid,..." This is the name calling that an inferior
> mind restorts to when frustrated.
> "... which is why you remain wrong in perpetuity." This signals that
> the writter will never open his mind to new ideas and will never admit
> error even when in obvious error.
>
> The sprinklings of "fuck you" is the first signs that the writter is
> unable to accept opinions different than those firmly implanted in his
> belief system. When further confronted he will often resort to threats
> of physical harm or murder. Though the threats are most often empty
> threats; there is nothing to gain by argueing with a sick mind. <ker-
> plunk>

i understand, i respond for just so long also. but, we need to
understand that there are many reading us, that will never respond. we
need to respond to these fascists, otherwise if they keep the lies
going long enough, they become truths in the minds of the weak.
you are correct, he has nothing, and is making a fool of himself, but
that is what i want, it exposes his type for what they are, cranks.

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:36 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:39 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 1:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> >>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
> >>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
> >>>> tt
> >>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
> >>> enough talk about Americans.
> >> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>
> > we the people in order to form, well you know, the founders were
> > collectivists:)
>
> Sorry, that's wrong. Those were individuals with aligned individual
> interests. There is no such thing as the collective or common interest.
>

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:collective&ei=xJDOSoS7CNaz8QaXsJzxBg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE

corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together;
"a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"

> >>> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
> >> It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
> >> and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
> >> wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
> >> government. Got that? They take it.
>
> > good god, you keep right on with the silly crap. somalia should be
> > the richest country in the world, after all, its considered the
> > freest:)
>
> It isn't.
>

why, no government intervention, no taxes, no regulations, its the
freest.

> >>> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
> >>> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
> >>> Christians when its easy
> >> Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
> >> The government cannot outlaw that.
>
> > they can print it,
>
> They can't create any value behind it. Money with no value behind it is
> worthless.
>

sure they can, FDR did it quite nicely, as did LINCOLN. and its
constitutional.

> It's the *wealth* they seize, not the fucking dollar signs, you moron.
>

wealth is represented by money. government issues money, and protects
private property. taxes are but a payment for living in a civilized
country.

> >>> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
> >>> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
> >>> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
> >>> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
> >>> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
> >>> the working middle class down the river.
> >> Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
> >> gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit.
>
> > ROTFLOL, lets refine it a bit, most good paying jobs in
> > manufacturing, and now service has left america
>
> Some. Not all, and not the best paying jobs.
>
>

millions have left, that is why demand has collapsed. demand is
driven by wages.

>
> >> It relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
> >> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
> >> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
> >> terms you don't understand.
>
> > you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing.
>
> I know lots, and Friedman knew much more. He was brilliant *and* wise.

ROTFLOL, everyone of his free market lala lands have collapsed, and
quite spectacularly. iceland was his triump, what a mess.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 9:56 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:16 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 3:17 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 12:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>>>> my problem.
>>>>>>> "That's false"? How did you get to decide?
>>>>>> Sorry, pal - that's just how it is. Individuals are, and should be,
>>>>>> paramount. Deal with it.
>>>>> according to your own personal opinion, correct, but in america, its
>>>>> we the people in order to form a more perfect union:)
>>>> A union of individual states, not a collective.
>>> yawn,
>>> We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
>>> Union,
>> The union refers to the union of states. Those states still exist as
>> individual political entities.
>>
>
>
> it says we the people

The union refers to the states.

>>> establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
>>> common defense, promote the general Welfare,
>> Does not mean to provide goods and services.
>>
>
>
>
> starving people are fed goods and services.

Neither the preamble nor any article provides a justification for the
federal government doing that. The "welfare" discussed is not the
individual welfare of persons.

>>>>>>> "Only individuals have rights..." If only that were true.
>>>>>>> Corporations have the right to make donations. Corporations have this
>>>>>>> right and that. Churches have the right to do X, Governments also have
>>>>>>> rights.
>>>>>> A corporation is a legal person.
>>>>> a corporation is a collective,
>>>> A corporation is not a collective. There are shareholders of a
>>>> corporation, and those shareholders are the ones who have the corporate
>>>> interest. People who work for the corporation have their interests.
>>>> Ideally, the interests of the shareholders and the interests of the
>>>> employees are aligned. That does not make them a "collective" interest;
>>>> it makes them mutually held individual interests.
>>> yawn,
>> Close your mouth, felcher.
>>
>
> your response

Is appropriate.

>>
>>>>>>> "... and those rights do not include a right to the productive effort
>>>>>>> of others." You think?
>>>>>> No, I *KNOW* for certain.
>>>>> the government has given permission for the collectives known as
>>>>> corporations to exist in the first place.
>>>> No, not the government.
>>> then what, santa claus. corporate collectives
>> No such thing.
>>
>
>
> then where do corprorate collectives

No such thing.

>>>>>>> So, I have no right to medicines developed with
>>>>>>> grants from governments.
>>>>>> Absolutely none. If you want it, you pay for it.
>>>>> this is also known in the free market as, free market, self
>>>>> responsible, self reliant, rugged individuals, as they pull themselves
>>>>> up by the bootstraps of their wealthy parents, with tax payer monies.
>>>>> you will notice he never quibbled over the subsidy you and i provide,
>>>> End the subsidy.
>>> snicker, sure you will:)
>> I personally can't do that, but it's my position.
>>
>
>
> hey, you still profit from it

No.

>>>>> and he never quibbles over the profit from said subsidy either:)
>>>> The profit doesn't come from the subsidy.
>>> yes i know, profits drops from the sky, not a result of a subsidy.
>> Profit comes from operating a business that brings in more revenue that
>> is spent in costs.
>>
>
> the first part of your statement is correct

The entire statement is correct.

>>
>>>>>> I believe the government should not fund drug research in the first place.
>>>>> well, honesty, even if its stupid, is refreshing.
>>>> It's not stupid.
>>>>>>> I don't have the right to cheap food based
>>>>>>> mainly on the effecient highway systems.
>>>>>> You don't have any "right" to food, period. If you want food, earn the
>>>>>> money to pay for some, or beg for it. Understand that if your begging
>>>>>> doesn't result in any food or money being given to you, you'll go
>>>>>> hungry. That's just how it is, and it is good.
>>>>> that is the useless eaters theory that hitler and mussolini employed,
>>>> Logical fallacy to try to smear me by linking my view to theirs.
>>> if it walks like
>> You committed a logical fallacy.
>>
>
>
> hey, if you walk

Logical fallacy.

>>>>>>> I don't have the right to
>>>>>>> clean air and water?
>>>>>> No. You don't have *any* right to any material good or service.
>>>>> that is not what the constitution says.
>>>> It is.
>>> where does it say that? however it says this:)
>>> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
>>> Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
>>> Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
>> "general welfare of the United States" does not mean the material
>> welfare of individual persons.
>>
>
> sure it does,

It doesn't.

>>>>> it says to promote and
>>>>> provide for the general welfare of americans.
>>>> That doesn't mean material goods or services.
>>> sure it does,
>> It doesn't.
>>
>
>
> idiotology

Not a word.

>>>>>>> What are you saying?
>>>>>> Just what I said above: you have no rights to any goods or services.
>>>>> what he is saying is, that he is a fascist.
>>>> No. It is not "fascism" to say that people don't have a right to goods
>>>> or services. They *don't* have any such right.
>>> by embracing the useless eater theory,
>> No one has a "right" to food that obliges me or anyone else to provide
>> it to him at our expense.
>>
>
>
> sig heil!!!

non sequitur

>>>> "Fascism" is just a swearword coming from leftists.
>>> hey,
>> It's just a swearword coming from stupid cocksuckers.
>>
>
>
> if

Nothing but swearing.

>>>>>>> "If some Detroit deadbeat..." There you go, dehumanizing a person to
>>>>>>> make it easier.
>>>>>> No, there's no dehumanization at all. Some people just are deadbeats.
>>>>>> I don't care about them. More to the point, I do not *owe* them any
>>>>>> consideration regarding their material welfare. If they're hungry,
>>>>>> that's too bad for them.
>>>>> yea, let the humans die.
>>>> Everyone dies.
>>> dig that hole ever deeper.
>> Not a refutation, cocksucker.
>>
>
>
> it must be

You didn't refute anything. You couldn't.

>>>>> It's not my concern, nor should it be...unless
>>>>>> I *choose* to make it my concern. No one else - not you, not 10,000
>>>>>> people like you - has the moral authority to tell me it "ought" to be my
>>>>>> concern. I'll concern myself with it only if I want to do so. Everyone
>>>>>> else can fuck off, you most of all.
>>>>> the government made up of we the people not only has the moral
>>>>> authority,
>>>> No, no one has the moral authority to tell me what my concerns are or
>>>> should be.
>>> then you are unamerican.
>> I am, of course, the quintessential American, *specifically* for holding
>> that belief.
>>
>
>
> we fought a war to make the world civilized.

No.

>
>>>>>>> "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>>> my problem." Ok, let us say that the Xtian premise,
>>>>>> No, allow *me*: it's bullshit.
>>>>> no allow me, we beat you in WWII.
>>>> No.
>>> never give up the hope for a new fuehrer
>> I never had any hope for a führer. I don't believe in führers.
>>
>
>
> just the strongman

No.

>> Hey, how do you like that Kenyan führer you've got going?
>>
>
>
> last time i checked, he was elected.

So were Hitler and Mussolini.

>>>>>>> Continuing: "... doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit,
>>>>>>> that's not my problem." First it does become your problem when crime
>>>>>>> increases,
>>>>>> Lock him up. If he busts into my house in the middle of the night, I'll
>>>>>> shoot him dead.
>>>>> so, the true conservative comes out, all poor people are criminals.
>>>> Not what I said.
>>> sure it was
>> No, it wasn't.
>>
>
>
> you words are powerful.

Yes.

>>>>>>> when diseases spread and revolution smolders.
>>>>>> Go ahead and keep jerking off with your collectivist crap if it makes
>>>>>> you feel better. It won't change the fact that the deadbeat's welfare
>>>>>> is not my concern. It also doesn't change the fact that collectivists
>>>>>> like you simply don't have the moral power to make it my concern.
>>>>>> You're pissing in the ocean, pal.
>>>>> you can lack empathy,
>>>> I have plenty of empathy. I get to decide on when it's appropriate to
>>>> feel it.
>>> psychopaths
>> You're one.
>
> i am

Right.

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 9:58 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:04 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:20 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 7:24 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>> We give some children a crappy education and then wonder as they act
>>>>>>> ignorant.
>>>>>> "crappy education" -- that's deliberate "liberal" education policy.
>>>>> as we see today, there are many hundreds of thousands, if not
>>>>> millions of students who were in for profit private schools
>>>> False. Very few private schools were or are for profit.
>>>> You're just a liar.
>>> then what are they?
>> Not for profit, you stupid fuck.
>>
>
>
> there are no for profit schools huh?

Not what I said.

>>>>>>> We exclude some people from opportunities
>>>>>> No.
>>>>> yes.
>>>> No.
>>> yes.
>> No.
>>
>
> yes.

No. No one is excluded from opportunities. Some people are too stupid
to seize opportunity right at their feet. You, for example.

>>>>>>> We outsource living wage jobs and wonder why people are so lazy.
>>>>>> No one has a "right" to a job at a particular wage.
>>>>> that is not true, we have a minimum wage
>>>> You don't have a right to a job in the first place, and not at whatever
>>>> wage you might wish.
>>> that is a childish statement.
>> It isn't. It's a statement of reality, *and* a well conceived moral
>> prescription.
>>
>
>
>
> lacking morals is the correct terminology.

No. It is not a moral statement that you don't have a right to a job in
the first place - it is a statement of fact.

>>>>>>> We flood certain neighborhoods with cheap drink and drugs
>>>>>> No. People in those neighborhoods are buying what they want. Do you
>>>>>> presume to tell them what to eat and drink, too? You want to run
>>>>>> everything else in their lives...
>>>>> as we have seem today, collectives flooded america with crappy food
>>>> No.
>>> sure they did.
>> No. You believe bullshit, fuckwit.
>>
>
>
> there

Everywhere. All of your beliefs are in bullshit.

>>>>>>> We dump all of society problems in prisons
>>>>>> No. Drug offenders shouldn't be there. Everyone else in prison belongs
>>>>>> there.
>>>>> you are sure of that blanket statement correct?
>>>> Yes.
>>> hmmm, just recently it was found out that many people on death row in
>>> illinois were innocent and black.
>> No, it wasn't.
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!!!!!

You think it's funny that you're always wrong? Interesting.

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:07 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:08 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 10:23 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 6:43 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
>>>>> dog.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>>>>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
>>>>>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
>>>>>>>>> murdering him.
>>>>>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
>>>>>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
>>>>>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>>>>>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
>>>>>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
>>>>>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
>>>>>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
>>>>>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
>>>>>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
>>>>>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
>>>>>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>>>>>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
>>>>>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
>>>>>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
>>>>>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
>>>>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>>>> my problem.
>>>>>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
>>>>>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
>>>>>>>>> fully sink in.
>>>>>>>> It likely never will.
>>>>>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
>>>>>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
>>>>>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
>>>>>>>> if you believe that.
>>>>>>> the founders were collectivists, anyone with a pulse who can read,
>>>>>>> knows the constitution is a collectivist document.
>>>>>> You been eating moldy bread.....?
>>>>> we have been thru this before.
>>>> You got it wrong then, too.
>>> i am sure that
>> Most of what you are sure about is bullshit.
>>
>
>
> nothing you have refuted

All of it.

>>>>> read the declaration, preamble, and
>>>>> the constitution. the bill of rights gives rights
>>>> No, it does not. It acknowledges rights that individual persons hold.
>>> We the People of the United States,
>> The Bill of Rights acknowledges individual rights; it does not "give"
>> rights.
>>
>
>
> if you are a american you get those rights.

The Bill of Rights does not "give" rights. You don't "get" them - you
have them. The Bill of Rights says the government may not infringe the
rights you have. It does not grant rights.

>>>>> to the people, not
>>>>> person, people.
>>>> Individual persons.
>>> its says we the people,
>> The rights are held by individuals.
>>
>
> individuals make up a collective.

No.

>>>>>> The constitution and the Bill of Rights point out individual rights of
>>>>>> the people.
>>>>> correct, people, not person, but people.
>>>> Individual persons. Each individual person holds the rights.
>>> it says the people,
>> The rights are held by individuals. Rights cannot be held by a collective.
>>
>
>
> the rights are held by the people

The rights are held by individual persons.

>>>>> but the bill of rights is
>>>>> not the complete constitution, its but a part of it, and part of it
>>>>> says to promote, and provide for the general welfare of the people. as
>>>>> well as the right to regulate the economy.
>>> missed one hey,
>> "Provide for the general welfare" in no way means to provide goods and
>> services.
>>
>
>
> really,

Yes.

>>>>>> Each person has a right to free speech, otherwise it would be only when
>>>>>> we all speak at once and in harmony?
>>>>> that is a collective right,
>>>> It is not.
>>> it is so.
>> No.
>>
>
>
> then not all americans have the right of free speech?

No, that's false. All individual Americans have the right of free
speech - each one.

>>>>>> Were they really that kind of collectivist, why have 13 colonies and
>>>>>> not just the one great Federal government? Who needs individual States
>>>>>> when we can just be one collective.
>>>>> i have shown you the supremacy clause more than once. states have
>>>>> rights,
>>>> States do not have rights.
>>> correct,
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>>> States have powers.
>>> correct, limited,
>> No. The statement "States have power" is not limited. The powers are
>> limited; the statement is not.
>>
>
>
> their powers are limited to what the constitution allows them,

False. The Constitution - capitalize the word, you unpatriotic fuck -
does not "allow" powers to the states. The states *hold* plenary
powers. Go look up "plenary" - I know for certain you don't know what
it means. The Constitution does not give those powers to the states.

>>>> People
>>> gotcha:)
>> You don't even have a grip on your own tiny pencil dick.
>>
>
>
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA,

Gotcha!

>>>> - individual
>>>> persons - have rights.
>>> as said in the preamble and bill of rights, people,
>> People as individual persons - not a collective.
>>
>
> it does not say we the individual

That's what it means. "The people" cannot collectively exercise rights;
individuals can and do.

>> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
>> perpetuity.
>
> that is your personal opinion

It is a fact.

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:14 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:09 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 8, 9:05 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 7:54 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 2:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 11:46 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>>>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>>>>>>>> tt
>>>>>>>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>>>>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>>>>>>>> Funny you should misquote the Bible, "I'm not brother's keeper". The
>>>>>>>>> person who said that was Cain when asked about Abel shortly after
>>>>>>>>> murdering him.
>>>>>>>> No misquote. The term has come to mean, over time, that people are
>>>>>>>> responsible for the welfare of others, those "others" usually being
>>>>>>>> people who *refuse* to take responsibility for themselves.
>>>>>>>>> Collectivist bullshit?
>>>>>>>> Yes, collectivist bullshit, asshole. No one has any "right" to my
>>>>>>>> effort. I *choose* voluntarily to incur obligations to others - my wife
>>>>>>>> and child, others I care about - and they then have a reasonable
>>>>>>>> expectation that I will meet those obligations. When you and other
>>>>>>>> leftist assholes start preaching to me about what I owe people to whom I
>>>>>>>> have no connection other than an accident of geography, I tell you to
>>>>>>>> fuck off, and you *do* fuck off.
>>>>>>>>> Is that to do with united as in United States?
>>>>>>>>> Was it collectivists who wiped out smallpox? Made the US a nearly 100%
>>>>>>>>> literate society? I don't understand this collectivist insult. Do you
>>>>>>>>> mean people working together to solve problems? Then count me in.
>>>>>>>> Collectivism means that groups are more important than individuals.
>>>>>>>> That's false. Only individuals have rights, and those rights do not
>>>>>>>> include a right to the productive effort of others. If some Detroit
>>>>>>>> deadbeat doesn't have enough to eat or a warm place to shit, that's not
>>>>>>>> my problem.
>>>>>>>>> You're right, I don't know what "lump of labor" means, but I'm
>>>>>>>>> reading about it now and I'm sure it will take several days to have it
>>>>>>>>> fully sink in.
>>>>>>>> It likely never will.
>>>>>>>>> What I do know is the difference between right and
>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>> No, you very clearly do not. If you think it's "right" that I can be
>>>>>>>> compelled to provide for someone else about whom I don't care, then you
>>>>>>>> have no real understanding of right and wrong: *you* are morally wrong
>>>>>>>> if you believe that.
>>>>>>> the founders were collectivists,
>>>>>> Absolutely they were not.
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
>>>>> The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
>>>>> statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that
>>>> ...does not contain the word "collectivism", nor does it state any
>>>> collective purpose.
>>>> I'm glad we got /that/ settled.
>>> we did not,
>> We did. It's settled. There is no collective purpose, because there is
>> no collective. There are only *individual* persons acting in concert.
>> That does not create a collective.
>
> thank you for providing me with the official definition of a
> collective,

Not a collective.

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:14 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:28 pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 11:08 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> You are wrong. You're also stupid, which is why you remain wrong in
>>> perpetuity.
>> This is why I will argue with people of this ilk for only so long.
>>
>> "You are wrong." This signals that the writer believes himself right.
>> "You're also stupid,..." This is the name calling that an inferior
>> mind restorts to when frustrated.
>> "... which is why you remain wrong in perpetuity." This signals that
>> the writter will never open his mind to new ideas and will never admit
>> error even when in obvious error.
>>
>> The sprinklings of "fuck you" is the first signs that the writter is
>> unable to accept opinions different than those firmly implanted in his
>> belief system. When further confronted he will often resort to threats
>> of physical harm or murder. Though the threats are most often empty
>> threats; there is nothing to gain by argueing with a sick mind. <ker-
>> plunk>
>
> i understand, i respond for just so long also. but, we need to
> understand that there are many reading us,

You dumb motherfucking cunt: there aren't 50 people reading you. You
don't know a fucking thing about Usenet.

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:15 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:39 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 1:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 7, 9:44 am, martin <martin.secrest...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/21215978/detail.html
>>>>>> Whatta hoot! Except it's costing money, our money.
>>>>>> tt
>>>>> Our money? As opposed to what? Their money? Too much us vs them, not
>>>>> enough talk about Americans.
>>>> I'm not my brother's keeper. Keep your collectivist bullshit to yourself.
>>> we the people in order to form, well you know, the founders were
>>> collectivists:)
>> Sorry, that's wrong. Those were individuals with aligned individual
>> interests. There is no such thing as the collective or common interest.
>>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:collective&ei=xJDOSoS7CNaz8QaXsJzxBg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAoQkAE
>
> corporate: done by or characteristic of individuals acting together;
> "a joint identity"; "the collective mind"; "the corporate good"
>
>
>>>>> First off it is not your money. It is the money of the US government.
>>>> It's not. Don't be such a fucking idiot. The money represents wealth,
>>>> and the government does not create wealth. All they can do is seize
>>>> wealth from those who create it. The wealth doesn't belong to the
>>>> government. Got that? They take it.
>>> good god, you keep right on with the silly crap. somalia should be
>>> the richest country in the world, after all, its considered the
>>> freest:)
>> It isn't.
>>
>
>
> why, no government intervention, no taxes, no regulations, its the
> freest.
>
>>>>> They can print it, or they can tax it, they could outlaw it if it
>>>>> serves their purpose. Didn't Christ say something about this? Too many
>>>>> Christians when its easy
>>>> Money is a store of value, a numeraire commodity, an accounting unit.
>>>> The government cannot outlaw that.
>>> they can print it,
>> They can't create any value behind it. Money with no value behind it is
>> worthless.
>>
>
> sure they can, FDR did it quite nicely, as did LINCOLN. and its
> constitutional.
>
>
>> It's the *wealth* they seize, not the fucking dollar signs, you moron.
>>
>
>
> wealth is represented by money. government issues money, and protects
> private property. taxes are but a payment for living in a civilized
> country.
>
>>>>> Second, why are all these people without money? The easy answer is
>>>>> that they are lazy and shiftless. The hard answer is that it is a
>>>>> complicated situation. All the jobs have gone elsewhere for the
>>>>> benifit of a few. There are no jobs due to globalization, trickledown
>>>>> theories, NAFTA, 'freetrade' and so many more programs that have sold
>>>>> the working middle class down the river.
>>>> Your "hard answer" is leftist bullshit. Start with "all the jobs have
>>>> gone elsewhere for the benefit of the few". That's simply bullshit.
>>> ROTFLOL, lets refine it a bit, most good paying jobs in
>>> manufacturing, and now service has left america
>> Some. Not all, and not the best paying jobs.
>>
>>
>
>
> millions have left,

Not all. New jobs are created all the time.

>>>> It relies on a fallacy of thinking about economics, commonly called the
>>>> "lump of labor" fallacy. Look it up; if you want me to teach you
>>>> economics, you have to pay me. The rest is just a concatenation of
>>>> terms you don't understand.
>>> you know nothing, just as milton friedman knew nothing.
>> I know lots, and Friedman knew much more. He was brilliant *and* wise.
>
> ROTFLOL, everyone of his free market lala lands

No such thing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:43 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.

wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
citizens. try to fight a effective war with starving sick people. what
a idiot.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:56 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 2:30 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
> K wrote:
> > The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> > services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> > the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> government to "give" things to the people.
>

here is the real truth,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory
statement of the fundamental purposes and guiding principles that the
Constitution is meant to serve. In general terms it states, and courts
have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Fathers'
intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped it
would achieve (especially as compared with the Articles of
Confederation).

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect
Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

we the people, to promote, and in the constitution, provide for the
general welfare.

> Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> the Federal Government.
>

no, it says for,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties,
Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common
Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,
Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

the united states is a collective of citizens who all get the same
rights issued to them by the constitution. the federal government is
here to serve the people. the united states of america is only as
strong as its citizens, and the founders knew that full well. and that
is what they mean by the general welfare of the united states. we the
people, as explained in the preamble.

> People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>

unless of course you have the logic skills to understand the plain
language in the constitution, which you do not. if americans are weak,
the country is weak.

> Look at amendment 10
>
> Amendment X
>
> The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
> prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> or to the people.
>

as long as those rights and laws, do not clash with federal law,
regulation, or treaty. if they do, then federal law trumps state law.
all the 10th says is that states do have some rights, but those
rights can be trumped by the supremacy clause. and have been almost
since day one. you keep whipping a dead horse. its why you are
impervious to facts, logic, and reason.

> Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> Government or "the people" of Nation.

we the people.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:58 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 3:03 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
> > K wrote:
> >> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> > You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> > says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> > The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> > government to "give" things to the people.
>
> > Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> > the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> > the Federal Government.
>
> When the words "United States" appear in the Constitution, it means
> *either* (narrowly) the federal government, or (broadly) the nation as a
> *political* entity. It most assuredly does *NOT* mean the people.
>

"We the People of the United States"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution

> "If you torture the [Constitution] long enough, it will confess" --
> paraphrasing Ronald Coase. Leftists attempt to torture the Constitution
> until it hollers the meaning the leftists want.
>

if you are a lying fascist, you can ignore reality, it still will not
change a thing.

> > People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> > imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
> > Look at amendment 10
>
> > Amendment X
>
> > The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
> > prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> > or to the people.
>
> > Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> > Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> > Government or "the people" of Nation.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 6:59 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 8, 3:26 pm, hal wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:30:56 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
>
>
>
> <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
> >K wrote:
> >> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> >You mix up the Preamble that says Promote and article 1 section 8 that
> >says provide..... for the welfare of the United states.
>
> >The Preamble says "promote" So that kills the idea that it authorizes
> >government to "give" things to the people.
>
> >Yes article 1 section 8 says Provide, but no it doesn't say provide to
> >the people. It is specific in saying the Congress is to "PROVIDE" for
> >the Federal Government.
>
> >People have distorted these parts of the constitution to create an
> >imaginary clause of welfare for the people.
>
> Welfare for The People provides for a stable society and a more
> healthy, functioning republic, so provides for the welfare of The
> Republic. History has shown us again and again extreme disparity of
> the classes provides for and unstable and violent society.
> Redistribution of wealth to the lower and middle classes through
> government mandated social programs is good for the economy, society,
> and The Republic therefore performs the function designated in The
> Constitution.
>

exactly. and as the first sentence in the preamble says,"we the
people" not we the government, but we the people.

>
>
> >Look at amendment 10
>
> >Amendment X
>
> >The *powers not delegated to the United States* by the Constitution, nor
> >prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
> >or to the people.
>
> >Now tell us what United States means...... It means the United States
> >Government also known today as the federal government as oppose to State
> >Government or "the people" of Nation.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 10:16 pm
From: K

Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
>
> wilson woods strikes again:) a country is only as healthy as its
> citizens.

The clause in Article I does not mean to promote any person's individual
welfare. It means to promote the welfare of the nation as a political
entity. That's what it means.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: For more related products , please go to our online items www. ecshop
365 .com
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5c6661cf0f85b98c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 7:12 pm
From: chole handbags

buy chloe handbags, Chanel handbags,wholesale Chanel, Gucci,LV,
Chanel handbags,Gucci,LV, purchase Gucci,LV, Chanel
handbags, Gucci,LV,,get discount price www. ecshop365 .com

buy chloe handbags,Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV, wholesale
Gucci,LV,
Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV, purchase Gucci,LV,, Chanel
handbags, Gucci,LV, get discount price,
Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV, for sale, low price shop,
purchase chloe handbags,Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV, cheap,
china
supplier www. ecshop365 .com

buy chloe handbags,Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV,, wholesale
Gucci,LV, Chanel

handbags, CA caps, purchaseGucci,LV, Chanel
handbags, chloe handbags, Gucci,LV, get discount price,
Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags,Gucci,LVfor sale, low price shop,
purchase Gucci,LV, Chanel handbags, Gucci,LV, china
supplier, chloe handbags, Chanel handbags factories
wholesale supply top quality, good service, reasonable price, fast
and
safe shipping www. ecshop365 .com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: the Price of Marijuana to come down.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/49f81ea069abe782?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 8 2009 9:28 pm
From: geo

"traveler" <Vallecito@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8144b1d6-4329-4253-bae4-c1c91863339a@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Pot legalization gains momentum in California
By MARCUS WOHLSEN (AP) – 10 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO — Marijuana advocates are gathering signatures to get at
least three pot-legalization measures on the ballot in 2010 in
California, setting up what could be a groundbreaking clash with the
federal government over U.S. drug policy.

At least one poll shows voters would support lifting the pot
prohibition, which would make the state of 40 million the first in the
nation to legalize marijuana.

Such action would also send the state into a headlong conflict with
the U.S. government while raising questions about how federal law
enforcement could enforce its drug laws in the face of a massive
government-sanctioned pot industry.

The state already has a thriving marijuana trade, thanks to a first-of-
its-kind 1996 ballot measure that allowed people to smoke pot for
medical purposes. But full legalization could turn medical marijuana
dispensaries into all-purpose pot stores, and the open sale of joints
could become commonplace on mom-and-pop liquor store counters in
liberal locales like Oakland and Santa Cruz.

Under federal law, marijuana is illegal, period. After overseeing a
series of raids that destroyed more than 300,000 marijuana plants in
California's Sierra Nevada foothills this summer, federal drug czar
Gil Kerlikowske proclaimed, "Legalization is not in the president's
vocabulary, and it's not in mine."

The U.S. Supreme Court also has ruled that federal law enforcement
agents have the right to crack down even on marijuana users and
distributors who are in compliance with California's medical marijuana
law.

But some legal scholars and policy analysts say the government will
not be able to require California to help in enforcing the federal
marijuana ban if the state legalizes the drug.

Without assistance from the state's legions of narcotics officers,
they say, federal agents could do little to curb marijuana in
California.

"Even though that federal ban is still in place and the federal
government can enforce it, it doesn't mean the states have to follow
suit," said Robert Mikos, a Vanderbilt University law professor who
recently published a paper about the issue.

Nothing can stop federal anti-drug agents from making marijuana
arrests, even if Californians legalize pot, he said. However, the U.S.
government cannot pass a law requiring local and state police,
sheriff's departments or state narcotics enforcers to help.

That is significant, because nearly all arrests for marijuana crimes
are made at the state level. Of more than 847,000 marijuana-related
arrests in 2008, for example, just over 6,300 suspects were booked by
federal law enforcement, or fewer than 1 percent.

State marijuana bans have allowed the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration to focus on big cases, said Rosalie Pacula, director of
drug policy research at the Rand Corp.

"It's only something the feds are going to be concerned about if
you're growing tons of pot," Pacula said. For anything less, she said,
"they don't have the resources to waste on it."

In a typical recent prosecution, 29-year-old Luke Scarmazzo was
sentenced to nearly 22 years and co-defendant Ricardo Ruiz Montes to
20 years in federal prison for drug trafficking through a medical
marijuana dispensary in Modesto.

At his bond hearing, prosecutors showed a rap video in which Scarmazzo
boasts about his successful marijuana business, taunts federal
authorities and carries cardboard boxes filled with cash. The DEA said
the pair made more than $4.5 million in marijuana sales in less than
two years.

The DEA would not speculate on the effects of any decision by
California to legalize pot. "Marijuana is illegal under federal law
and DEA will continue to attack large-scale drug trafficking
organizations at every level," spokeswoman Dawn Dearden said.

The most conservative of the three ballot measures would only legalize
possession of up to one ounce of pot for personal use by adults 21 and
older — an amount that already under state law can only result at most
in a $100 fine.

The proposal would also allow anyone to grow a plot of marijuana up to
5 feet-by-5 feet on their private property. The size, Pacula said,
seems specifically designed to keep the total number of plants grown
below 100, the threshold for DEA attention.

The greatest potential for conflict with the U.S. government would
likely come from the provision that would give local governments the
power to decide city-by-city whether to allow pot sales.

Hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries across the state already
operate openly with only modest federal interference. If recreational
marijuana became legal, these businesses could operate without
requiring their customers to qualify as patients.

Any business that grew bigger than the already typical storefront
shops, however, would probably be too tempting a target for federal
prosecution, experts said.

Even if Washington could no longer count on California to keep pot off
its own streets, Congress or the Obama administration could try to
coerce cooperation by withholding federal funds.

But with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's announcement earlier this
year that the Justice Department would defer to state laws on
marijuana, the federal response to possible legalization remains
unclear.

Doug Richardson, a spokesman for the White House's Office of National
Drug Control Policy, said the office is in the process of re-
evaluating its policies on marijuana and other drugs.

Richardson said the office under Obama was pursuing a "more
comprehensive" approach than the previous administration, with
emphasis on prevention and treatment as well as law enforcement.

"We're trying to base stuff on the facts, the evidence and the
science," he said, "not some particular prejudice somebody brings to
the table."
=====

The broke Counties need to go into the pot farming business.

and Hemp. Great rotation crop for the farmers.
and a fine fiber.
--
money; what a concept!

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Thursday, October 8, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 topics - digest

No comments: