An Open Letter to our Nation's Leadership - Unbelievable… Common Sense in America

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your one warning.

I'm being called a racist and *I'M* the one getting the warning? Nice.

That is the result of being on "the list"

Stand up for yourself and have an opinion that does not coincide with that of Bill and Quade and you make the list.

If that were true, I'm sure I'd be on the list.

Tom you might be the only exception.

I also think you can be a bit more fair in your decisions, even when you agree you can be just.


I have seen Bill be fair and just at times, quade not so much.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Heck Quade could not even figure out a riddle and for that he threw a fit of mo9numental proportion.


And for the effort I got a warning.


Who here could not figure out how I can say honestly that "I do not own a firearm"

Geez!


It is true.

[TomAiello 26]

Seriously, you guys need to let it go.

Here's the thing. Moderators are allowed to bait you. They're allowed to argue with you. They're allowed to trick you, twist your words, or do whatever else any other poster is allowed to do.

The things they aren't supposed to do all have to do with moderation actions.

What's happening here is that you're getting baited and goaded enough that you lose control and break the forum rules (by making personal attacks). That doesn't indicate any bias on the part of the moderators. It just shows that they understand the rules and can use them against you if they wish.

The correct response here is not to bitch that you only broke the rules because they goaded you--that's not a viable defense.

The correct response is to just let it go, and either (a) move to another thread, (b) argue civilly with endless patience, (c) make silly and/or word twisting (but not personal attacking) posts of your own, or (d) just shut off the damn computer and go do something else for a while.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Seriously, you guys need to let it go.

Here's the thing. Moderators are allowed to bait you. They're allowed to argue with you. They're allowed to trick you, twist your words, or do whatever else any other poster is allowed to do.

The things they aren't supposed to do all have to do with moderation actions.

What's happening here is that you're getting baited and goaded enough that you lose control and break the forum rules (by making personal attacks). That doesn't indicate any bias on the part of the moderators. It just shows that they understand the rules and can use them against you if they wish.

The correct response here is not to bitch that you only broke the rules because they goaded you--that's not a viable defense.

The correct response is to just let it go, and either (a) move to another thread, (b) argue civilly with endless patience, (c) make silly and/or word twisting (but not personal attacking) posts of your own, or (d) just shut off the damn computer and go do something else for a while.

You do not say they can do a PA and get away with it. As some of them have and do

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>That is the result of being on "the list"

I'd love to see that list!

[billvon 2,991]

>"Economic controller" - as in setting budget?

Nope. Economic controller as in setting import and export tariffs, setting prime lending rates, doing "economic stimulus" programs etc. Basically trying to explicitly control the direction of the economy through economic policy decisions. It doesn't do much. That's why presidents cannot just make recessions disappear.

Now, through their implicit actions, governments do indeed contribute to the economy. Fire half the people in the government to slash the budget and you'd have a massive recession as the economy tried to absorb all those unemployed people and make up for their spending. If you were lucky the private sector would pick them up and replace those functions, and the economy would recover.

Likewise, start a war and double spending and for a while you have economic good times. Lots of money, lots of employees (military contractors etc) = high employment and high money speeds. Again, eventually the economy evens out as all those newly employed people get hit with the taxes required to support those expenditures.

Those are the indirect governmental drivers of the economy, and IMO have a much larger effect than the direct control the government has over monetary policy.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>That is the result of being on "the list"

I'd love to see that list!

It was figurative Bill....

As if you don't have a personal shit list

Heck I do, and you are not on it!


Are you saddened by that?

[billvon 2,991]

>As if you don't have a personal shit list. . .

Oh, I do, of course. I think everyone does. I just wanted to know what you thought "the list" was. It would be interesting to compare your list to, say, Amazon's. I have a feeling they would be diametrically opposite.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>As if you don't have a personal shit list. . .

Oh, I do, of course. I think everyone does. I just wanted to know what you thought "the list" was. It would be interesting to compare your list to, say, Amazon's. I have a feeling they would be diametrically opposite.

You would be amazed that we are not on each others list, we get along pretty well.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>That is the result of being on "the list"

I'd love to see that list!

Hmm, the fact that you think there is one is worth the time to read the responce!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>You would be amazed that we are not on each others list, we get along
>pretty well.

Oh, no doubt. I'd just be interested in who was on it. I've gotten PM's from both sides of the aisle claiming that I was warning them "just because I'm not in the clique."

[BIGUN 1,316]

I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders.

Who pays for that? By even optimistic estimates, that's a hundred billion dollar proposition. How much $$ are you willing to put into it?

Admittedly. I only skimmed the five pages of noise, Bill. But, this point is a bone of contention with me as I come from a lineage where my Grandfather immigrated from Sicily and his first action was to learn english and his second; to join the US Army (I am now third generation military).

The proposition is actually closer to two hundred billion with an annual declining scale of cost per annum [if successful and 'if' illegal immigration is curtailed as a result of these measures] http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/press_release_0938.shtm Concurrently, your State alone (California) which is now no less than technically bankrupt spends 10 billion annually on illegal immigrants http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecentersffec with an overall national cost of $338 billion per annum according to Libertarian, Kevin Colby's breakdown.

We have to admit there is a significant cost for reducing illegal immigration while migrating back to a land that accepts "your tired, your poor..." legally. The question is, "Is the solution less costly than the continued inclining scale of costs over a ten year period?"

I'll be offline a couple of days.

Keith

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.