Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

[Guest guest]

Government control of prices is ALWAYS a disaster in any but dire

emergencies or other short term cases in a free market system. If you

own a house and it's worth $2000 per month but the government limits

you to charging $500 per month then the government is screwing you out

of $1500 per month. It's exactly the same as if you perform a medical

procedure that is worth $200 and the government says you can only charge

$50. You've been screwed out of 75% of your earnings in either case.

In your case if the procedure is actually worth $200 of your time,

expertise, office staff and equipment and you only collect $50 you're

losing money. How long will you stay in business if the government

tells you that you must lose money on each patient? Your input MUST

decrease if you're to stay in business. It's the same with rent control.

..

..

>

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:17 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Maybe where you live, but NOT where I live.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

>

>

>

> Rent control is typically a total disaster. It is impossible for it to

> work within the framework of a free society. It may in some cases

> achieve some really dumb liberal goals, but to the over all detriment of

> society, as well as to those it is supposed to " help " .

>

>

[Guest guest]

Your post is a total perversion of what I believe and what I've

written. In any case I've been on the short end of the stick on every

one of the examples you give. That didn't change any of the facts.

Exactly how many of the situations to which you have reference have YOU

any experience???

There are people who do not provide $1.00 per hour of output. Some it

would be better if they stayed home. How much would YOU pay such a

person to mow your lawn?

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:26 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> doesn't seem to care about the people who are the low end of the

> wage

> scale. And because of circumstances beyond their control can't get a job

> that pays $50 a hour or even 20/hr. The repubs and the conservatives don't

> care that without a minimum wage there would be no protections for

> workers.

> Employers could pay them $1.00./hr and there would be nothing anyone could

> do about it.

> I wonder if they even remember their first job and if they ever wonder

> what

> it would have been like to have ZERO job protections and be at the

> mercy of

> an employer that low balled them on a salary.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

>

>

>

> One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> benefits for the most people than any system in history.

>

> Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

>

> Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or $30

> per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about $3

> per hour.

>

> NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is pretty

> stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> pretty stupid.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ah, yes; a typical liberal hatchet job. " Lacking in depth " ??? Hardly.

The breadth and depth of simple facts in mind numbing quantity is the

sole limitation of the book as far as I can see. It does such a

thorough job of debunking so much liberal thought with unassailable

facts that they have to attack in pure self defense.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:36 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Why don't YOU read all those books that I listed, ah but then that would

> mean you would actually have discover the true facts about families and

> poverty...

> That book is a CONSERVATIVE view on race and culture with OUTDATED FACTS.

> The book was written in 1994.

> DEMOGRAPHICS have changed, james and the sad reality is the younger

> generations do not want to care for the older generations. That is why we

> are seeing an increased number of elderly Asians getting dumped into

> nursing

> homes and into homeless shelters. Also, elder abuse is growing among the

> Asian populations.

> Here are some reviews of his book:

[Guest guest]

Roni, you DO realize you cannot document anything you wrote, don't you???

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:56 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> That's the whole point. Bush was giving tax cuts to businesses to take

> themselves overseas, and thereby losing jobs in the U.S. To me that's

> akin to treason, if you know what I mean. The people here were

> sabotaged by their own president.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 6:19 PM

>

> To pay the minimum tax required by law makes perfect sense to me. Do

> you include a few dollars extra when you send in your taxes? A business

> evaluates all known expenses including taxes when making a decision as

> to where, when and how to conduct their business legally. If they pay

> more taxes than their competition they have to charge their customers

> more, which places them at an extreme competitive disadvantage. Too

> much of this leads to bankruptcy and the loss of all jobs they provided,

> as well as all the taxes they paid.

>

> We could avoid their bankruptcy by passing some law similar to a rent

> control law that says that you as a consumer must continue to buy from

> them. And it would make perfect sense to certain liberals; but I doubt

> you are anywhere near sufficiently mentally challenged to think it

> reasonable.

>

>

[Guest guest]

If you're right we should raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour. You

can't have any empathy for the poor slob trying to support his family on

$6 or $8 per hour minimum wage if you don't agree.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:01 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Right so people should just keep getting paid wages that are not a living

> wage, so that they can never save anything and stay living pay check to

> paycheck and never be able to stop struggling everyday.

> I see that you do not have empathy and never will have empathy . End of

> story.

>

> -- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

>

>

>

>

> , those supporting minimum wage laws don't comprehend that increased

> minimum wages cost jobs (employers no longer can afford to keep as many

> people at the higher wages), increase prices (companies are going to

> recoup

> the additional costs somehow) and contrary to what the wishful thinks

> believe, effectively puts more people into poverty because those who are

> making anything over minimum wage, even so much as 25 cents don't get

> a pay

> increase yet have to incorporate all of the additional costs into their

> budget...been there, done that! It does nothing except disrupt/destabilize

> the economy even further...

>

>

>

> >

> > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> >

> > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> >

> > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or $30

> > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about $3

> > per hour.

> >

> > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is pretty

> > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > pretty stupid.

> >

> >

> > .

[Guest guest]

I'm a conservative republican and I detest so much that advocated

but I don't think you have him right. I think he's probably one of the

best intentioned presidents we ever had, and no doubt the most sincere

as a Christian. He sincerely in my opinion believed in all the utterly

stupid liberal crap he posited; I don't think he made anything up. He's

so much the opposite of most modern liberal politicians, who absolutely

KNOW that their policies are a total piece of crap. If you care to

address his effectiveness that's another matter.

Nixon was no doubt guilty of almost exactly the same crimes as Clinton.

Perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury, tampering with

witnesses and so on. One difference: When it began to appear that

Nixon was probably guilty the REPUBLICANS went to him and told him in no

uncertain terms that lawlessness would NOT be tolerated. OTOH the

democrats totally supported Clinton in his lawlessness. The republicans

kicked out their criminal; the democrats hailed theirs as a hero.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:17 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Give me a break. I think we all know that they are all culpable

> to one degree or another. I do think though, that Bush's

> white house was the most toxic presidency we've ever had,

> with Nixon's a close second, and 's a third.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 6:52 PM

>

> Wow! I had almost come to believe I was the only person on this list

> aware of the inconvenient facts that liberals/democrats would prefer to

> hide about our present difficulties. I'm sure there's plenty of fault

> to go around, but to blame it all on the republicans while ignoring the

> well documented guilt of the democrats is to me totally dishonest.

>

> If any of you liberals doubt these facts just do a bit of investigating

> beyond your propaganda sheets.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> >

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> <mailto:val%40wyosip.com>

> > <mailto:val@... <mailto:val%40wyosip.com>?Subject=%20Re%

>

3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism\

%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > val1198 <val1198

> <val1198>>

> >

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:22 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > News flash! There are 20 million illegals in this country taking

> American

> > jobs.

> >

> > Fannie and Freddie failed because Congress, under and Clinton,

> > mandated banks loan to unworthy borrowers. Five years ago, Geo Bush

> tried

> > to rein them in and Barney screamed " discrimination against poor

> > people. " Bush backed down. Republicans didn't fight. McCain also

> > tried a couple of years ago but his bill died in a Democrat controlled

> > committee.

> >

> > There is nothing above with which to argue. Those are all provable

> facts.

[Guest guest]

I said that a particular course of action would result in fewer deaths.

Since when is fewer deaths a cruel statement??? You do not DIRECTLY

advocate more deaths; but you advocate a position that results in more

deaths. I oppose your position that results in more deaths.

Providing support for the approximate 90% of welfare recipients who

actually could do better for themselves results in the inner city ghetto

slums where the death rate is so much higher than we should allow.

That is the result of modern liberal thought.

..

..

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:20 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> This sentence is from your bloody post , not mine.:

> <We would actually

> > have FEWER deaths if we eliminated ALL welfare and let those die who

> > could not provide for themselves; >

> I was responding to your short sighted CRUEL statement!

>

>

>

> I DON " T advocate more deaths . What BS. You are the one who is advocating

> more deaths . By not helping people when they are in need, you are

> contributing to their social, physical and emotional state of being. That

> slam is completely RIGHT WING BS.

> Providing them governmental aid is not contributing to their deaths,

> providing them with food stamps is giving them life. No food stamps, more

> starvation, because food banks can't keep up with the demand and smaller

> regional charities and food banks are going broke dealing with the

> MILLIONS

> who have lost their jobs and are running through their savings.

> What about unemployment benefits?? They are governmental assistance.

> Want to

> tell the millions that they can't have their monthly checks? What are

> these

> people going to do if they don't get the check?? How are they going to

> feed

> their families?? Pay the car note? Pay the mortgage or rent? Pay for

> gas so

> they can drive the car?? We already have a shortage of shelter beds in the

> homeless shelter networks. There is not enough emergency housing to go

> around already even without this economic crisis. What do you want

> people to

> do? Live on the street? Under overpasses? Live in their cars, where if

> they

> live in a cold environment, they will freeze. They are not allowed to

> sleep

> in churches in most cities because of fire code regulations, so that

> is out.

>

> Even where I live, near the beach, it gets down to the 40's to 50's and it

> is DAMP cold that cuts right through you. we have had an increase in

> people

> freezing to death because there is not enough cold weather shelters.

> my state has a republican governor and he still thinks that we need to

> extend social servce benefits to the needy because to do otherwise is

> short

> sighted, cruel, inhumane and unethical.

> living without running water is not criminal james, as long as you have

> acess to clean water.

> i am glad you rose above it and created a nice life for yourself.

> BUT, receiving governmental assistance would not have tied you to a

> life on

> welfare. it is clear that you had opurtunity to go to school and better

> yourself. many other people are less fortunate and don't have the

> education

> to get into univeresity level in the first place.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

>

>

>

> One: You should read RACE AND CULTURE by Sowell, who totally

> blows your opinions out of the water with facts.

>

> Two: I indicate one course of action that would result in FEWER deaths

> of the poor, and you find that reprehensible??? You advocate MORE

> deaths??? Actually, you do; but you don't know it. I lived the

> poverty you observed from the outside. I was fortunate that I didn't

> have someone like you to " help " me to remain in that condition for the

> rest of my life. A child born in 1941 in rural Mississippi and raised

> by my mom and my alcoholic father on sharecropper's sweat. I never

> lived in a house with running water or a toilet until I was grown and

> left home. Unless you have a similar experience you don't _really_ know

> a damned thing about poverty. Living it gives a totally different view

> from seeing it during your day job and going to a comfortable home at

> night.

>

>

[Guest guest]

It exists. It doesn't " work " if by work you mean function efficiently

and in a just manner for all parties. If you think it does then tell me

the effects of rent control on availability of rental units in NYC. You

can find a lot of material like that below, in which both liberals and

conservatives assert that rent control is a disaster. It is from THE

CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF ECONOMICS by Walter Block:

..

..

>

> The Effects of Rent Control

>

> Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls

> are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May

> 1992 issue of the /American Economic Review,/ 93 percent of U.S.

> respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a

> ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing

> available.”1

>

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#lfCEE2-145_footnot\

e_nt386>

> Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the

> Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.2

>

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#lfCEE2-145_footnot\

e_nt387>

> The agreement cuts across the usual political spectrum, ranging all

> the way from Nobel Prize winners milton friedman

> <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Friedman.html> and friedrich

> hayek <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html> on the

> “right” to their fellow Nobel laureate gunnar myrdal

> <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Myrdal.html>, an important

> architect of the Swedish Labor Party’s welfare

> <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Welfare.html> state, on the

> “left.” Myrdal stated, “Rent control has in certain Western countries

> constituted, maybe, the worst example of poor planning by governments

> lacking courage and vision.”3

>

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#lfCEE2-145_footnot\

e_nt388>

> His fellow Swedish economist (and socialist) Assar Lindbeck asserted,

> “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique

> presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing.”4

>

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#lfCEE2-145_footnot\

e_nt389>

> That cities like New York have clearly not been destroyed by rent

> control is due to the fact that rent control has been relaxed over the

> years.5

>

<http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/RentControl.html#lfCEE2-145_footnot\

e_nt390>

> Rent stabilization, for example, which took the place of rent control

> for newer buildings, is less restrictive than the old rent control.

> Also, the decades-long boom in the New York City housing market is not

> in rent-controlled or rent-stabilized units, but in condominiums and

> cooperative housing. But these two forms of housing ownership grew

> important as a way of getting around rent control.

>

> Economists have shown that rent control diverts new investment

> <http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Investment.html>, which would

> otherwise have gone to rental housing, toward greener pastures—greener

> in terms of consumer need. They have demonstrated that it leads to

> housing deterioration, fewer repairs, and less maintenance. For

> example, Niebanck found that 29 percent of rent-controlled

> housing in the United States was deteriorated, but only 8 percent of

> the uncontrolled units were in such a state of disrepair. Brenner

> and Herbert lin cited similar statistics for England and France.

>

> The economic reasons are straightforward. One effect of government

> oversight is to retard investment in residential rental units. Imagine

> that you have five million dollars to invest and can place the funds

> in any industry you wish. In most businesses, governments will place

> only limited controls and taxes on your enterprise. But if you entrust

> your money to rental housing, you must pass one additional hurdle: the

> rent-control authority, with its hearings, red tape, and rent

> ceilings. Under these conditions is it any wonder that you are less

> likely to build or purchase rental housing?

>

> This line of reasoning holds not just for you, but for everyone else

> as well. As a result, the quantity of apartments for rent will be far

> smaller than otherwise. And not so amazingly, the preceding analysis

> holds true not only for the case where rent controls are in place, but

> even where they are only threatened. The mere anticipation of controls

> is enough to have a chilling effect on such investment. Instead,

> everything else under the sun in the real estate market has been

> built: condominiums, office towers, hotels, warehouses, commercial

> space. Why? Because such investments have never been subject to rent

> controls, and no one fears that they ever will be. It is no accident

> that these facilities boast healthy vacancy rates and relatively

> slowly increasing rental rates, while residential space suffers from a

> virtual zero vacancy rate in the controlled sector and skyrocketing

> prices in the uncontrolled sector.

>

> Although many rent-control ordinances specifically exempt new rental

> units from coverage, investors are too cautious (perhaps too smart) to

> put their faith in rental housing. In numerous cases housing units

> supposedly exempt forever from controls were nevertheless brought

> under the provisions of this law due to some “emergency” or other. New

> York City’s government, for example, has three times broken its

> promise to exempt new or vacant units from control. So prevalent is

> this practice of rent-control authorities that a new term has been

> invented to describe it: “recapture.”

>

> Rent control has destroyed entire sections of sound housing in New

> York’s South Bronx and has led to decay and abandonment throughout the

> entire five boroughs of the city. Although hard statistics on

> abandonments are not available, Tucker estimates that about

> 30,000 New York apartments were abandoned annually from 1972 to 1982,

> a loss of almost a third of a million units in this eleven-year

> period. Thanks to rent control, and to potential investors’

> all-too-rational fear that rent control will become even more

> stringent, no sensible investor will build rental housing unsubsidized

> by government.

>

..

<http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:M_qJJeQItUEJ:www.econlib.org/library/Enc/R\

entControl.html+rent+control+nyc & cd=4 & hl=en & ct=clnk & gl=us & lr=lang_en>

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:24 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Apartment rent control has been working in NYC for ages, and still is.

> I don't notice the city falling to pieces.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit%40msn.com>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:13 PM

>

> Maybe where you live, but NOT where I live.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> Rent control is typically a total disaster. It is impossible for it to

> work within the framework of a free society. It may in some cases

> achieve some really dumb liberal goals, but to the over all detriment of

> society, as well as to those it is supposed to " help " .

>

>

> .

[Guest guest]

I've lived and worked in urban areas all my adult life. You don't

really have to tell me how different they are.

Your assertions about the rich holding on to every penny defies logic,

and applies only to a tiny percentage. The purpose of wealth for most

people is not money, but the goods and services money can buy. You

can't eat, wear, copulate with or live in a pile of dollars with any

degree of comfort. You HAVE to spend them to get any of the benefits of

wealth.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:28 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> I understand that you came from a farm, but have you ever been or

> lived in a city? Things are very different in urban areas from rural

> areas.

>

> As far as the trickle down thing, it sure was a republican thing. It

> was Raegan's thing. I voted for the man, silly me, and I remember

> it sounded good, but it never worked. When the top has money,

> as evidenced by some of the comments on this list, some of them

> want to hold onto every penny, and wouldn't give up anything for

> good workers, no matter what their production.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:19 PM

>

> The " trickle down theory " is a straw man constructed by democrats to

> describe what they say is official republican policy. AFAIK it never was.

>

> However, it does work. Prime example is the small towns of such utter

> poverty that we can hardly imagine in Somali where the modern pirates

> live. The " trickle down " from the riches of the pirates has enriched

> the entire population of the towns.

>

> If you stop to think about it, it has to work. If someone gains wealth

> they have to spend it in order to obtain goods and services [if they

> save it they don't get any more goods and services]. That means jobs

> and incomes for the workers who provide the goods and services; some of

> whom may live in Indonesia or some other place where an income of a

> dollar or two per day puts you in the upper percentage of the country's

> wealthy.

>

> But don't let facts or logic interfere with your opinion...

>

>

> .

[Guest guest]

I haven't read your links........too time consuming, but NYC has some of the

highest rents in the country, as well as some rent controlled apartments

occupied primarily by elderly people who have been living there for decades.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: Nancie Barnett <deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit%40msn.com>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:13 PM

>

> Maybe where you live, but NOT where I live.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> Rent control is typically a total disaster. It is impossible for it to

> work within the framework of a free society. It may in some cases

> achieve some really dumb liberal goals, but to the over all detriment of

> society, as well as to those it is supposed to " help " .

>

>

> .

------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

I have never once questioned your empathy for the needy; I just believe

your policies create the problems. The first part is more than you can

say concerning your attacks on my empathy. You have repeatedly attacked

me [and all conservatives] as being uncaring. You deny the simple,

easily proved fact that conservatives give more to charity than do

liberals, which anybody with access to the internet could verify in a

couple of minutes. You deny any facts that do not suit your liberal

agenda. You don't care that you are wrong, and you aren't about to take

the tiny step of checking it out.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:54 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Oh, , I wouldn't bet on that.

> coming from a conservative republican, I am not surprised that you

> belittle

> my altruistic views and my experiences working among the poor for years.

> My mum grew up in the depression, so I know all about poverty and

> hardship.

> Thank god, I didn't have to experience it and I am sure your

> experience made

> you the conservative that you are now. Although with my mum, she

> turned out

> to be a liberal democrat, go figure.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

>

>

>

> I _LIVED_ a life of poverty as a child that your clients probably don't

> even know exists. And for the most part now only exists in third world

> countries. I don't need you to tell me about it, or to read about it.

> Least of all some liberal crap.

>

>

> .

[Guest guest]

Until recently I was playing bass guitar at a jam session for mostly

seniors every Monday night. We often had one or more homeless men stop

by, I'm sure more for the free food than for the music. I had to laugh

recently when during a song one of the homeless men jumped up out of his

seat and ran outside to answer his cell phone...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>

<mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%2\

0Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> val1198 <val1198>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:15 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> Yeah, how are they going to pay their cell phone bills if government

> doesn't

> confiscate resources from YOU?

>

> Val

[Guest guest]

I saw a reference of the federal minimum wage being $6.55 per hour; I

don't know if that's current. Whatever, $7 or $8 per hour is not enough

to take care of a family. Adding a dollar isn't going to do it either.

If you think we should have a minimum wage law why don't you want it to

be $20per hour? Should I accuse you of apathy because you don't want

the poor to have a living wage?

When you figure out why it shouldn't be $20 per hour then apply the same

logic and you will know why minimum wage laws are unproductive.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 11:15 pm (PDT)

>

>

>

> O.K. , you're a kind person and so is Nancie. You both have done

> what you could for the amount of people that you could. Do you think

> this is sufficient? Could you stand by and watch children starve,

> because they had not food, adults die of cancer or other illnesses

> because they couldn't get healthcare, elderly people thrown out on the

> street because there was no place for them to go? Could you stand

> staunchly by and not be affected by these atrocities? You all talk of

> the terrorists, and yet you'd be willing to let millions of people be

> hungry and sick and die because you don't want to pay another dollar

> out in minimum wage.

>

> It's hard to believe that is how you think. I've come to experience

> the caring and helping

> parts of your natures. It doesn't mesh with the apathy to which you

> ascribe.

>

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

[Guest guest]

I think thats known as an " armchair liberal " .

wrote:

>

>

> Ah, yes; those poor, needy unwashed strangers. In OUR house yet! What

> would people think???

>

> But I agree; they're not in mine either. I must be totally lacking in

> empathy, right??? [ggg]

>

>

> .

> .

> >

> >

> > Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

> <mailto:deifspirit%40msn.com>

> > <mailto:deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit%40msn.com>?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1

> <aspenfairy1>>

> >

> >

> > Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:52 am (PDT)

> >

> >

> >

> > That is your choice, but my mum does not want any strangers living

> in the

> > house. She has a friggin right to refuse, as I think any 88

> year old

> > has maybe even your own mum.

> >

> > -- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > I guess we should have said, 'sorry, we've got our 4 kids living with

> > us!'

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>

> No virus found in this incoming message.

> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

> Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.11.54/2056 - Release Date: 04/13/09

05:51:00

>

>