Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #445747 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 228 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 08:51 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 08:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 11:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 09:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 12:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 07:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:48 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:32 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 20:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:44 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2017-02-07 11:22 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 00:26 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:33 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:36 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 07:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 08:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:08 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:12 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 17:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:43 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 03:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:11 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 09:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 16:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 13:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:03 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:59 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 13:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 16:52 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 15:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 12:20 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-02-04 08:14 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-04 09:01 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-04 04:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:39 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 17:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:42 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 10:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 10:35 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-03 13:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:18 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-04 17:21 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:09 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 10:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 11:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 09:36 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 23:47 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 18:39 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-06 15:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-05 10:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 15:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> - 2017-02-04 01:27 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-04 09:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:28 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 16:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-04 00:54 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 18:09 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 17:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley mrdarrett@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 08:34 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-03 11:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 17:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 03:57 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:17 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:14 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:16 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-03 07:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:06 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-04 10:40 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-04 08:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 07:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 08:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 10:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-06 12:41 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-06 14:53 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-07 06:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 08:44 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 12:21 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-07 20:24 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 18:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-07 09:29 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-07 11:02 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-06 17:20 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Julian Barnes <jb9889@notformail.com> - 2017-02-07 23:27 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-07 16:48 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:45 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-07 16:42 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:45 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 16:54 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:34 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 09:48 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:56 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 08:51 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:42 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:13 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 17:43 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 10:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:26 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:27 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 10:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 10:15 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-02 10:25 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:47 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 12:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 13:29 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:07 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:19 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:29 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 11:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:31 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> - 2017-02-02 14:40 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "tom" <tmiller11147@verizon.net> - 2017-02-02 18:37 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:08 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 13:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 12:06 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 14:35 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley tomseim2g@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 22:55 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-05 00:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-05 18:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-02-02 14:55 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 16:10 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:58 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:54 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:10 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 20:53 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:06 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:04 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:24 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-03 06:56 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 20:51 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-02 21:12 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 20:15 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-03 19:16 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-03 23:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-03 21:07 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 19:05 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:17 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:25 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:30 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 05:22 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 23:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:02 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 12:05 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 16:28 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:18 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-03 08:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 15:23 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 18:14 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-02 17:05 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 19:41 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:00 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> - 2017-02-02 17:01 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:04 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 20:12 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-02 21:01 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-02-03 13:03 +1100
Re: OT: Berkeley Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-03 09:48 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 07:26 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 09:25 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com - 2017-02-05 10:30 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-05 18:51 +0000
Re: OT: Berkeley Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@On-My-Web-Site.com> - 2017-02-05 12:12 -0700
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-05 18:37 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 18:49 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-02 22:38 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley "dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> - 2017-02-03 06:50 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-02-03 11:56 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-02-02 21:17 -0500
Re: OT: Berkeley whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-02 19:23 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley bill.sloman@ieee.org - 2017-02-02 20:19 -0800
Re: OT: Berkeley John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> - 2017-02-02 23:37 -0600
Re: OT: Berkeley Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-05 08:55 -0800
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
| From | Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 08:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o742hm$h0a$1@gonzo.alcatraz> |
| In reply to | #446001 |
On 2017-02-03, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > I also don't understand the Left's love affair with Islam. Makes no > sense at all. "love afair with Islam" is fake news, you're not supposed to understand it. -- This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XLglA.554217$Ww5.199565@fx42.am4> |
| In reply to | #446001 |
On 03/02/17 21:43, John Larkin wrote: > I also don't understand the Left's love affair with Islam. Makes no > sense at all. What are you talking about? That sounds like the Orwellian doublespeak "alternative news", a.k.a. propaganda lies. And of course 1984 was a thinly disguised critique of Stalinist communism. The left loves/hates/ignores/studies Islam as much as the right. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the alt-right adopt exactly the same tactics use by Stalin et al.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 04:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4TglA.109721$Q62.74281@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #446065 |
On 02/04/2017 04:01 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 03/02/17 21:43, John Larkin wrote: >> I also don't understand the Left's love affair with Islam. Makes no >> sense at all. > > What are you talking about? That sounds like the > Orwellian doublespeak "alternative news", a.k.a. > propaganda lies. And of course 1984 was a thinly > disguised critique of Stalinist communism. > > The left loves/hates/ignores/studies Islam as much > as the right. > > Perhaps it is unsurprising that the alt-right > adopt exactly the same tactics use by Stalin > et al. "love affair with Islam" is "Conservative Code" for "we don't support Conservative presidents when they launch bungled wars against Iraq that get thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of civilian killed because WHY WONT JESUS SHOW UP AGAIN ALREADY?!" reasons.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lon79chn0k1sm7o3j726c4j4skk0roojbe@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445854 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 00:26:40 +0000, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >On 02/02/17 20:09, John Larkin wrote: > >> Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> courts become the engineers. >> >> Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >> justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >> the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >> interpretation isn't accepted. > >We've always been somewhat bemused by the /religious/ adherence >to the written constitution. > >There are advantages to not having a written constitution, >in particular "it" can evolve naturally as understanding >and circumstances change. Then it means nothing. Why bother, if it can change on a whim? > >OTOH, it has the disadvantage in that sometimes it is >invented on the fly. We've seen the consequences of that >in Brexit where the government asserted that it had the >right to leave the EU. A /private/ prosecution caused the >judges to slap down the government and state categorically >that parliament had that sovereign power (unlike the >sovereign :) ). > >Now all we need is an opposition that does its job, >i.e. to _oppose_, not to dither and waffle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d1a7701e-3558-4de9-b5a7-70619f3e4761@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445820 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > >> >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > >> >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! > >> >> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > >> >> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > >> >> without much fan fare. > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > >> > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > >> >a vote. > >> > > >> >Cheers > >> > > >> >Phil Hobbs > >> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > > >George H. > > > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > courts become the engineers. Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) The constitution is a living document in that we can change it. > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > interpretation isn't accepted. OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along the middle, if they want anything permanent. > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > meaningless. Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. (I'm not much into legal stuff.) George H. > > > -- > > John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc > picosecond timing precision measurement > > jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com > http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 17:27 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21n79cpfcfu74dj10saf714pemtl4bcaeh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445863 |
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:12:29 -0800 (PST), George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> >> >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Well deserved! >> >> >> >> >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >> >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >> >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >> >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >> >> >> without much fan fare. >> >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >> >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> >> > >> >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> >> >a vote. >> >> > >> >> >Cheers >> >> > >> >> >Phil Hobbs >> >> >> >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >> >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >> >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> > >> >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> > >> >George H. >> > >> >> Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> courts become the engineers. >Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >The constitution is a living >document in that we can change it. Yes. It includes rules for amending itself. It does not say that its words may be freely interpreted as desired, or just ignored. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 20:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <lqn79charg02kjj27hfcufpqnev9un9a81@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445863 |
On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:12:29 -0800 (PST), George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> >> >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >> >> >>> >> >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Well deserved! >> >> >> >> >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >> >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >> >> >> >> >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >> >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >> >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >> >> >> without much fan fare. >> >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >> >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> >> > >> >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> >> >a vote. >> >> > >> >> >Cheers >> >> > >> >> >Phil Hobbs >> >> >> >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >> >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >> >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> > >> >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> > >> >George H. >> > >> >> Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> courts become the engineers. >Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) Of course it confusing to someone who is looking for penumbras and eminations to justify what he thinks it should mean. >The constitution is a living >document in that we can change it. The instructions are right inside. >> Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >> justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >> the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >> interpretation isn't accepted. > >OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >the middle, if they want anything permanent. >> >> Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >> Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >> meaningless. >Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >(I'm not much into legal stuff.) <oh good grief!>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a4f90b38-72d4-4eed-969c-db1c20a7b2cc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445863 |
On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > >> > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > > >> >>> > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Well deserved! > > >> >> > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > >> >> > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > >> >> without much fan fare. > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > >> > > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > >> >a vote. > > >> > > > >> >Cheers > > >> > > > >> >Phil Hobbs > > >> > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > > > > >George H. > > > > > > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > > courts become the engineers. > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) > The constitution is a living > document in that we can change it. > > > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > > interpretation isn't accepted. > > OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along > the middle, if they want anything permanent. > > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > meaningless. > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. > (I'm not much into legal stuff.) > > George H. It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to explain what they meant in painstaking detail. It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 10:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7aj99c956dvjb3p7tqq0i33k0l3let3dlv@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445982 |
On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> > >> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >> > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >> > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Well deserved! >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >> > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >> > >> >> >> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >> > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >> > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >> > >> >> without much fan fare. >> > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >> > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> > >> > >> > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> > >> >a vote. >> > >> > >> > >> >Cheers >> > >> > >> > >> >Phil Hobbs >> > >> >> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >> > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >> > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> > > >> > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> > > >> > >George H. >> > > >> > >> > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> > courts become the engineers. >> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >> The constitution is a living >> document in that we can change it. >> > >> > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >> > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >> > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >> > interpretation isn't accepted. >> >> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >> the middle, if they want anything permanent. >> > >> > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >> > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >> > meaningless. >> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >> >> George H. > >It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >explain what they meant in painstaking detail. > >It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. > >At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from >attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. > >Cheers, >James Arthur The other traditional function of government was to maintain the roads. They don't do that very well any more. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc picosecond timing precision measurement jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 13:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <S4adnSpf98dLagnFnZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #445986 |
On 2017/02/03 10:35 AM, John Larkin wrote: > On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com > wrote: > >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >>>> <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>>>>>>>> OT: Berkeley... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well deserved! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>>>>>>> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>>>>>>> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>>>>>>> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>>>>>>> without much fan fare. >>>>>>>> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>>>>>>> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >>>>>>> that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >>>>>>> a vote. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Phil Hobbs >>>>>> >>>>>> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >>>>>> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >>>>>> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >>>>> >>>>> Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >>>>> I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>>>> but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >>>>> vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >>>>> >>>>> George H. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >>>> mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >>>> courts become the engineers. >>> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >>> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >>> The constitution is a living >>> document in that we can change it. >>>> >>>> Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >>>> justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >>>> the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >>>> interpretation isn't accepted. >>> >>> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >>> the middle, if they want anything permanent. >>>> >>>> Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >>>> Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >>>> meaningless. >>> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >>> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >>> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >>> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >>> >>> George H. >> >> It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >> common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >> explain what they meant in painstaking detail. >> >> It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. >> >> At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from >> attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. >> >> Cheers, >> James Arthur > > The other traditional function of government was to maintain the > roads. They don't do that very well any more. > > That might be partly because with the end of the cold war, instead of cutting back on your military spending you increased it. Exactly WHO are you spending that money for? How many aircraft carriers do the terrorists have? How many jet aircraft? You can fight terrorism with regular police forces for the most part, you only need to call in the military when they get nasty armament. If you put the excessive money your government spends on military (we all need some sort of military strength - how much is the question) since 1990 and put that extra in into US infrastructure and education your country would be in mighty fine shape by now. Instead you were tricked into spending your inheritance on the military, the same as the USSR was. They didn't turn out very well as a result, and we all worry about where the USA is heading. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:18 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o74qnc$pit$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #446000 |
John Robertson wrote: > > That might be partly because with the end of the cold war, instead of > cutting back on your military spending you increased it. Exactly WHO It's under 4% of GDP. It was just under 10% with JFK and 6.7% with Reagan. We now have fewer ships than we did just after the Kellogg-Briand pact. That's some increase. > are you spending that money for? How many aircraft carriers do the > terrorists have? How many jet aircraft? You can fight terrorism with > regular police forces for the most part, you only need to call in the > military when they get nasty armament. Sure, we can handle terrorism as a law enforcement problem, like the Clinton administration did. They convicted everyone connected to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and some other attacks and it kept getting worse. On the morning of 9/11/01 I already realized that if we had arrested them the day before then they would have been released because they hadn't done anything, but many people still don't see that. > If you put the excessive money your government spends on military (we > all need some sort of military strength - how much is the question) > since 1990 and put that extra in into US infrastructure and education > your country would be in mighty fine shape by now. We spend over $10,000 per year for each student and we keep hearing from people in the teacher's unions and their cohorts that it would be great if we just throw more money at them. > Instead you were tricked into spending your inheritance on the > military, the same as the USSR was. They didn't turn out very well as > a result, and we all worry about where the USA is heading. The USSR never spent less than 3 times what JFK did or less than 5 times what Reagan did. They may have made some other mistakes but apparently we can't determine what those mistakes were.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Robertson <spam@flippers.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 09:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <-qCdnVBzBYPoiQvFnZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #446085 |
On 2017/02/04 7:18 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > John Robertson wrote: >> >> That might be partly because with the end of the cold war, instead of >> cutting back on your military spending you increased it. Exactly WHO > > It's under 4% of GDP. It was just under 10% with JFK and 6.7% with > Reagan. We now have fewer ships than we did just after the > Kellogg-Briand pact. That's some increase. Most countries spend less than 2% unless they are at war (like Ukraine who spends 4%): http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS > > >> are you spending that money for? How many aircraft carriers do the >> terrorists have? How many jet aircraft? You can fight terrorism with >> regular police forces for the most part, you only need to call in the >> military when they get nasty armament. > > Sure, we can handle terrorism as a law enforcement problem, like the > Clinton administration did. They convicted everyone connected to the > 1993 World Trade Center bombing and some other attacks and it kept > getting worse. On the morning of 9/11/01 I already realized that if we > had arrested them the day before then they would have been released > because they hadn't done anything, but many people still don't see that. If they had been arrested then 9/11 would not have happened. In what universe would this not have been a good thing? More likely they would have ended up in Guantanamo or renditioned to some 3rd world country for torture. https://www.aclu.org/other/fact-sheet-extraordinary-rendition > > >> If you put the excessive money your government spends on military (we >> all need some sort of military strength - how much is the question) >> since 1990 and put that extra in into US infrastructure and education >> your country would be in mighty fine shape by now. > > We spend over $10,000 per year for each student and we keep hearing from > people in the teacher's unions and their cohorts that it would be great > if we just throw more money at them. > > >> Instead you were tricked into spending your inheritance on the >> military, the same as the USSR was. They didn't turn out very well as >> a result, and we all worry about where the USA is heading. Over 1/2 of the US discretionary federal budget is spent on the military. The other examples you cite are from the mandatory budget. Mandatory in the sense that if politicians mess with it they get unelected. > > The USSR never spent less than 3 times what JFK did or less than 5 times > what Reagan did. They may have made some other mistakes but apparently > we can't determine what those mistakes were. > > > Your government is not one of peace, it is of privilege and your people have just elected the most obvious embodiment of that. Good luck, we'll need it. John
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bill.sloman@ieee.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 17:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <979622e8-9180-4d4d-a790-8cba6b0803ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446085 |
On Sunday, February 5, 2017 at 2:09:12 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: > John Robertson wrote: > > > > That might be partly because with the end of the cold war, instead of > > cutting back on your military spending you increased it. Exactly WHO > > It's under 4% of GDP. It was just under 10% with JFK and 6.7% with > Reagan. We now have fewer ships than we did just after the > Kellogg-Briand pact. That's some increase. > > > > are you spending that money for? How many aircraft carriers do the > > terrorists have? How many jet aircraft? You can fight terrorism with > > regular police forces for the most part, you only need to call in the > > military when they get nasty armament. > > Sure, we can handle terrorism as a law enforcement problem, like the > Clinton administration did. They convicted everyone connected to the > 1993 World Trade Center bombing and some other attacks and it kept > getting worse. On the morning of 9/11/01 I already realized that if we > had arrested them the day before then they would have been released > because they hadn't done anything, but many people still don't see that. > > > > If you put the excessive money your government spends on military (we > > all need some sort of military strength - how much is the question) > > since 1990 and put that extra in into US infrastructure and education > > your country would be in mighty fine shape by now. > > We spend over $10,000 per year for each student and we keep hearing from > people in the teacher's unions and their cohorts that it would be great > if we just throw more money at them. The problem is that educational spending per student varies quite a bit from school district to school district. You don't spend $10,000 per year on each student. As an exaggerated example of what might be going on, if you spent $901,000 on one student in a hundred in a year, and $1000 per year on the other 99, you'd get the same average, but a very different outcome. Even on a state by state basis the actual spending per student per year varies from $19,818 in New York State to $6,555 in Utah, which is a 3:1 range. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-98.html Since your education spending per student varies from school district ot school district, the real range is almost certainly appreciably higher The teachers are probably right, in the sense that if you spent more money on the pupils that needed help you'd get better outcomes. The students from well-off families that currently benefit from the highest spending would do almost as well in less well-funded schools, and the students of poor families (who do tend to need more help) would do a lot better in better funded schools. Australia has a less steeply sloped income distribution than the US, and an education system organised by states rather than school districts, but it still has a problem with the distribution of education funding, with too little of the money going to those who need it most. The Gonski report went into the problems this creates in some detail, and proposed a solution. The report was commissioned by a Labour - left of centre - administration, who started putting the proposed solution into effect. The current Liberal - right of centre - government is back-tracking. https://docs.education.gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review-of-funding-for-schooling-final-report-dec-2011.pdf -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 20:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n1aa9cpthu86cvta6b0r7scq85r1jrs44c@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #445986 |
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:35:42 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >>> > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>> > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>> > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>> > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>> > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>> > >> >> without much fan fare. >>> > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>> > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >>> > >> > >>> > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >>> > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >>> > >> >a vote. >>> > >> > >>> > >> >Cheers >>> > >> > >>> > >> >Phil Hobbs >>> > >> >>> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >>> > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >>> > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >>> > > >>> > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >>> > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>> > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >>> > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >>> > > >>> > >George H. >>> > > >>> > >>> > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >>> > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >>> > courts become the engineers. >>> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >>> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >>> The constitution is a living >>> document in that we can change it. >>> > >>> > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >>> > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >>> > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >>> > interpretation isn't accepted. >>> >>> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >>> the middle, if they want anything permanent. >>> > >>> > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >>> > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >>> > meaningless. >>> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >>> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >>> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >>> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >>> >>> George H. >> >>It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >>common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >>explain what they meant in painstaking detail. >> >>It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. >> >>At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from >>attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. >> >>Cheers, >>James Arthur > >The other traditional function of government was to maintain the >roads. They don't do that very well any more. Only as part of the postal system (post roads). Eisenhower had to justify the Interstate Highway System on national defense grounds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14e76b5d-7b99-4ee1-aa00-60ece29a33a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #446028 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:35:42 -0800, John Larkin > <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com > >wrote: > > > >>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >>> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > >>> > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > >>> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > >>> > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > >>> > >> > >>> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > >>> > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > >>> > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > >>> > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > >>> > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > >>> > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > >>> > >> >> without much fan fare. > >>> > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > >>> > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > >>> > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > >>> > >> >a vote. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >Cheers > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >Phil Hobbs > >>> > >> > >>> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > >>> > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > >>> > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > >>> > > > >>> > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > >>> > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > >>> > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > >>> > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > >>> > > > >>> > >George H. > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > >>> > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > >>> > courts become the engineers. > >>> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, > >>> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) > >>> The constitution is a living > >>> document in that we can change it. > >>> > > >>> > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > >>> > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > >>> > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > >>> > interpretation isn't accepted. > >>> > >>> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along > >>> the middle, if they want anything permanent. > >>> > > >>> > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > >>> > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > >>> > meaningless. > >>> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked > >>> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the > >>> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. > >>> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) > >>> > >>> George H. > >> > >>It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the > >>common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to > >>explain what they meant in painstaking detail. > >> > >>It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. > >> > >>At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from > >>attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. > >> > >>Cheers, > >>James Arthur > > > >The other traditional function of government was to maintain the > >roads. They don't do that very well any more. > > Only as part of the postal system (post roads). Eisenhower had to > justify the Interstate Highway System on national defense grounds. Right. National roads seem a sensible use of the national government-- perhaps to coordinate state efforts? Other states' internal roads are fine. California's roads have gone to hell because Gov. Jerry Brown unionized state workers, who've taken over the state's budget with their demands (e.g., the teacher's unions). Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 10:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <jgse9c9k6rtd7vll0f18tt64oqvp3j0ik6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446302 |
On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:48:10 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote: >On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:35:42 -0800, John Larkin >> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >> >> >On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >> >wrote: >> > >> >>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >> >>> > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >> >>> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >> >>> > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >> >>> > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >> >>> > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >> >>> > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >> >>> > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >> >>> > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >> >>> > >> >> without much fan fare. >> >>> > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >> >>> > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >> >>> > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >> >>> > >> >a vote. >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> >Cheers >> >>> > >> > >> >>> > >> >Phil Hobbs >> >>> > >> >> >>> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >> >>> > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >> >>> > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >> >>> > > >> >>> > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >> >>> > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >> >>> > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >> >>> > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >> >>> > > >> >>> > >George H. >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >> >>> > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >> >>> > courts become the engineers. >> >>> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >> >>> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >> >>> The constitution is a living >> >>> document in that we can change it. >> >>> > >> >>> > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >> >>> > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >> >>> > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >> >>> > interpretation isn't accepted. >> >>> >> >>> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >> >>> the middle, if they want anything permanent. >> >>> > >> >>> > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >> >>> > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >> >>> > meaningless. >> >>> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >> >>> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >> >>> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >> >>> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >> >>> >> >>> George H. >> >> >> >>It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >> >>common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >> >>explain what they meant in painstaking detail. >> >> >> >>It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. >> >> >> >>At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from >> >>attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. >> >> >> >>Cheers, >> >>James Arthur >> > >> >The other traditional function of government was to maintain the >> >roads. They don't do that very well any more. >> >> Only as part of the postal system (post roads). Eisenhower had to >> justify the Interstate Highway System on national defense grounds. > >Right. National roads seem a sensible use of the national government-- >perhaps to coordinate state efforts? > >Other states' internal roads are fine. California's roads have gone to hell >because Gov. Jerry Brown unionized state workers, who've taken over the >state's budget with their demands (e.g., the teacher's unions). > >Cheers, >James Arthur California now collects about 30 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, theoretically to maintain the roads. It's spent on other nonsense. The Dem politicians hate cars, except their own. -- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 18:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <k2cf9c9hun2cjpjvivq9n4t63m306fjq2f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #446310 |
On Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:44:39 -0800, John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >On Sun, 5 Feb 2017 09:48:10 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >wrote: > >>On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 8:04:45 PM UTC-5, k...@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 10:35:42 -0800, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>> >On Fri, 3 Feb 2017 10:09:30 -0800 (PST), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >>On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold >>> >>> > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: >>> >>> > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs >>> >>> > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: >>> >>> > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: >>> >>> > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> >>> > >> >>> Well deserved! >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. >>> >>> > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. >>> >>> > >> >> >>> >>> > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had >>> >>> > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, >>> >>> > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved >>> >>> > >> >> without much fan fare. >>> >>> > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then >>> >>> > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around >>> >>> > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to >>> >>> > >> >a vote. >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >Cheers >>> >>> > >> > >>> >>> > >> >Phil Hobbs >>> >>> > >> >>> >>> > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump >>> >>> > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a >>> >>> > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. >>> >>> > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, >>> >>> > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, >>> >>> > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >George H. >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a >>> >>> > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The >>> >>> > courts become the engineers. >>> >>> Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, >>> >>> but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) >>> >>> The constitution is a living >>> >>> document in that we can change it. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of >>> >>> > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think >>> >>> > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their >>> >>> > interpretation isn't accepted. >>> >>> >>> >>> OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along >>> >>> the middle, if they want anything permanent. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the >>> >>> > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is >>> >>> > meaningless. >>> >>> Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked >>> >>> to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the >>> >>> Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. >>> >>> (I'm not much into legal stuff.) >>> >>> >>> >>> George H. >>> >> >>> >>It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the >>> >>common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to >>> >>explain what they meant in painstaking detail. >>> >> >>> >>It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers. >>> >> >>> >>At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from >>> >>attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another. >>> >> >>> >>Cheers, >>> >>James Arthur >>> > >>> >The other traditional function of government was to maintain the >>> >roads. They don't do that very well any more. >>> >>> Only as part of the postal system (post roads). Eisenhower had to >>> justify the Interstate Highway System on national defense grounds. >> >>Right. National roads seem a sensible use of the national government-- >>perhaps to coordinate state efforts? >> >>Other states' internal roads are fine. California's roads have gone to hell >>because Gov. Jerry Brown unionized state workers, who've taken over the >>state's budget with their demands (e.g., the teacher's unions). >> >>Cheers, >>James Arthur > >California now collects about 30 cents per gallon tax on gasoline, >theoretically to maintain the roads. It's spent on other nonsense. The >Dem politicians hate cars, except their own. Hey, if they didn't allow you on the road, they wouldn't get in so many traffic jams.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-04 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o74q0l$mu2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #445986 |
John Larkin wrote: > > The other traditional function of government was to maintain the > roads. They don't do that very well any more. And to provide stable currency, which they haven't done in 100 years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 11:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8c54955e-1873-4171-bf54-9ba7b1a80b5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445982 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:09:40 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold
> > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
> > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs
> > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote:
> > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley...
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5>
> > > >> >>>
> > > >> >>> Well deserved!
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you.
> > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had
> > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg,
> > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved
> > > >> >> without much fan fare.
> > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then
> > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around
> > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to
> > > >> >a vote.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Cheers
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Phil Hobbs
> > > >>
> > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump
> > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a
> > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years.
> > > >
> > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term.
> > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means,
> > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian,
> > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian.
> > > >
> > > >George H.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a
> > > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The
> > > courts become the engineers.
> > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion,
> > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.)
> > The constitution is a living
> > document in that we can change it.
> > >
> > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of
> > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think
> > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their
> > > interpretation isn't accepted.
> >
> > OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along
> > the middle, if they want anything permanent.
> > >
> > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the
> > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is
> > > meaningless.
> > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked
> > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the
> > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul.
> > (I'm not much into legal stuff.)
> >
> > George H.
>
> It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the
> common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to
> explain what they meant in painstaking detail.
OK so "men" in the original constitution refereed to white males.
(I'm not sure if they had to own land or not...)
Do we need to amend it to include women?
Or is that understood now?
>
> It's only when we pretzel-ize it that we need lawyers.
>
> At bottom the federal government's job is to keep people safe from
> attack, and restrain Americans from harming one another.
...promote the general welfare and secure the blessing of liberty
to ourselves and our prosperity... (I watched "Schoolhouse Rock"
as a kid on Saturday mornings. So you should read that with a sing-songy
voice :^)
For those not from the US or not of my generation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EfnNUt_nwY
George H.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-05 09:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1b14460a-9691-4685-a515-e602a1f10903@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #445989 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 2:10:58 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:09:40 PM UTC-5, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote: > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 8:12:39 PM UTC-5, George Herold wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 3:09:57 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > > On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 10:21:31 -0800 (PST), George Herold > > > > <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 12:09:48 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote: > > > > >> On Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:52:50 -0500, Phil Hobbs > > > > >> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> >On 02/02/2017 11:50 AM, George Herold wrote: > > > > >> >> On Thursday, February 2, 2017 at 10:51:39 AM UTC-5, Jim Thompson wrote: > > > > >> >>> OT: Berkeley... > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> <http://tinyurl.com/zzhgsh5> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Well deserved! > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Hmm, freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to listen to you. > > > > >> >> Protests are fine, I find the violence distasteful. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> BTW I was listening to NPR last night (fresh-air) and they had > > > > >> >> someone on who knows Judge Gorsuch. He sounds like a good egg, > > > > >> >> the conservative version of Garland. I hope he gets approved > > > > >> >> without much fan fare. > > > > >> >> (I wish the Republicans had held hearing on Garland, and then > > > > >> >> rejected him. That would have left less of a bad taste in my mouth.) > > > > >> > > > > > >> >There are enough RINOs in the underbrush, and enough dirty money around > > > > >> >that Garland might have got approved. Much safer to not let it come to > > > > >> >a vote. > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Cheers > > > > >> > > > > > >> >Phil Hobbs > > > > >> > > > > >> Strategically, it was probably a good move to stonewall. If Trump > > > > >> serves two terms and the Senate stays repub, we may have a > > > > >> strict-constructionist court for another 20 years. > > > > > > > > > >Well it worked out well for you in the short term. > > > > >I'm not sure what "strict constructionist" means, > > > > >but the guy on NPR said Gorsuch is a Jeffersonian, > > > > >vs Scalia who was more a Hamiltonian. > > > > > > > > > >George H. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strict constructionists read the Constitution literally. It's like a > > > > mathematician accepting axioms. Congress becomes the theorems. The > > > > courts become the engineers. > > > Ahh OK... (Look I don't want to start a gun discussion, > > > but the wording of the 2nd amendment is confusing.) > > > The constitution is a living > > > document in that we can change it. > > > > > > > > Liberals tend to want to interpret the constitution by their ideas of > > > > justice, as a "living document" and not what the words say, and think > > > > the courts can make law. They riot and set fires when their > > > > interpretation isn't accepted. > > > > > > OK I'm not setting any fires, Trump and the R's need to bring along > > > the middle, if they want anything permanent. > > > > > > > > Every federally elected person swears to defend and uphold the > > > > Constitution. If it's not interpreted literally, that oath is > > > > meaningless. > > > Boy that sounds a bit draconian, I think we should be all asked > > > to interpret it to the best of our abilities... if you are the > > > Prez or someone, you can get legal consul. > > > (I'm not much into legal stuff.) > > > > > > George H. > > > > It's really not that hard to understand George--it was written for the > > common man. And the guys who wrote it left us lots of writings to > > explain what they meant in painstaking detail. > > OK so "men" in the original constitution refereed to white males. That's a nasty libel, false, and irrelevant. o There were white slaves and black citizens. o That has almost no bearing on the principles laid out in the documents. That Romans used wheels in cruel machinery does not discredit wheels, or mean we disparage wheels, or machines using wheels. Our founding documents lay out a plan whereby a common man could set his own destiny, without having it dictated to him by some ignorant (best case), tyrant, or do-gooder (worst case) on high. They believed that overall a man is the best judge of his own affairs, and whenever possible, should be entrusted with them. Those principles are timeless. The design is either true, or not true to its stated purpose. Slurring the designers is simply obnoxious. Cheers, James Arthur
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web