a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:07:00 -0500, nate bishop
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:59:09 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

The difference in your analogy is that bigots and christians want to stop
gay people from walking on the publicly owned streets just like everyone
else,

I'm neither gay nor even acquainted with any gays, so I don't keep up
with everything in that area, but I've never heard anything that gives
credence to your claim above.

Read up on the biography of Alan Turing.

--
Ray Fischer

tony cooper wrote:
"Peter"

The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities were
pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying AA
rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bull****.

Shouldn't a major pension fund manager be knowledgeable enough about
what he puts his client's money into avoid scams?

"Yes, I was defrauded of billions of dollars, but it's not really the
fault of criminals. It's my fault for thinking that the people paid
to rate securities were actually telling the truth."

--
Ray Fischer

On 2010-04-23 19:56:53 -0700, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 21:07:07 -0500, Joel Connor
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:08:50 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 11:07:00 -0500, nate bishop
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 17:59:09 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

The difference in your analogy is that bigots and christians want to stop
gay people from walking on the publicly owned streets just like everyone
else,

I'm neither gay nor even acquainted with any gays, so I don't keep up
with everything in that area, but I've never heard anything that gives
credence to your claim above.

It's AN ANALOGY you freakin' MORON! A correction to a previously made
analogy of similar wording.


What are you, Chris H's vocabulary tutor? I did not present an
analogy and you did not present an analogy. The pertinent definition
of analogy is a "comparison of similarities". Not similar wording,
but similar features, functions, or description. The analogy presents
a resemblance of one thing to another.

I'll give you an analogy: A person who uses all caps for emphasis in
a newsgroup post is like a person who thinks talking loudly makes his
point more convincing.

It is our resident troll, "He who shall remain nameless."


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
tony cooper wrote:
"Peter"

The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
were
pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying AA
rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bull****.

Shouldn't a major pension fund manager be knowledgeable enough about
what he puts his client's money into avoid scams?

"Yes, I was defrauded of billions of dollars, but it's not really the
fault of criminals. It's my fault for thinking that the people paid
to rate securities were actually telling the truth."



Your point is?


--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham
wrote:
"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

You do seem to generalize from only a few instances to "pasting"
your evident low regard for some of those in need to all such. As
I have pointed out before, there will always be exceptions who
may not be worthy of help - but that BY NO MEANS indicates
that most who receive it are not in need of it for basic living
resources, and also use it to the best of their abilities. Few get
rich
on welfare...;-)
--DR

Hey! Show me these, "Most" of whom you speak.....I lived and worked
in
California for over 40 years, I knew many people who were welfare
puppies. I
have only known a very few who actually deserved some help from the
taxpayers.

You remind me of an old friend. After living for a year in my home
city he told me was fed up with it and going back to London. The
reason he gave was that it was a dreadful city, full of unemployed
benefit cheats who spent all their time working out how to swindle
more money out of the government. I said I hardly knew any benefit
cheats. He said yes you do, and named two we both knew. I pointed
out
to him he had introduced me to them.

In other words while he knew loads of benefit cheats, the only ones
I
knew people he'd introduced me to. So it was clear that the question
wasn't why was the city full of benefit cheats. The question was why
he knew so many of them :-)

My own experience tells me that the system is F***** up. The
statistics of less than 2% I got from reading about the welfare
system in
papers and books....I didn't just pull it out of the air.

We have plenty of papers and books that say the same kind of thing
about the UK. And political parties too. But we also have official
statistics which show that the truth is quite different.

How do the official statistics match up with these papers and books
you read?

--
Chris Malcolm

I believe I already mentioned that fewer than 2% of those on welfare
have some disability, either physical or mental. But it doesn't
matter.....You are either a believer or you aren't, and there is no
way I am going to change your mind. I go by my own knowledge and
experience.....I "escaped" from California to Oregon 13 years
ago.....Now, I can see Oregon rapidly becoming another California,
and the whole country rapidly becoming another California
too.....They are talking about adding a Value Added Tax to everything
we buy. Our government is desperately grasping at any excuse to get
more money from us anyway they can, and adding bureaucracy after
bureaucracy to spend more and more of our incomes on more and more
government employees.....I see no end to it, and obviously there is
nothing I can possibly do about it, so I am just wasting my time
trying to warn others about it. At this stage in my life, (I am 74)
the best thing I can do is just pursue my hobbies and enjoy what life
I have left, and let the next generation lie in whatever bed we have
prepared for them. I can only hope that my private papers and letters
tell them that I did my best to warn them of what was happening so
they don't put too much of the blame on me. Not that I believe it
will matter after I am gone anyway. I am a godless person, and do not
believe in any afterlife. This country is only about 250 years
old.....I doubt seriously if it will last another 100 years. It is
obvious to me that human beings are incapable of sustaining a free
existence indefinitely.....I guess we are too corrupt, or too lazy,
or too uneducated, or all three.


And you have never produced a reliable source for that statistic.

--
Peter
Why should I? I believe it, and I vote according to it. If you don't
believe it, then you should find your own statistics, and vote in
accordance with them. first you attack my logic. Then, when I prove my
case logically, you resort to attacking my facts. I am not going to
search for the verification of my facts just for your benefit. My
experience tells me that my facts are good. I have known several dozen
welfare puppies and never one who was disabled in any way, so my
experience tells me that my statistic is as I remember it. If you don't
believe it, then happily give your hard earned money to the government
and tell them to give it away to welfare takers. I can't help it if you
are stupid. It is too late for me to save any money for myself
anyway.....As I say, I haven't had to pay any taxes at all for the last
5 years or so, and it is obvious to me that I won't have to pay any for
the rest of my life. So it is YOUR money that is being poured into this
black hole, and not mine. Why should I bother to tell you about it?
Obviously, you are too stupid to benefit from my experience, so you ask
me to prove it to you.....Give me a break!


Prove your 98% figure. See my prior posting.

I think there are little purple people that visit your house when you
are sleeping. They disappear when you wake up. While you are sleeping
the induce subliminal thoughts of your self importance. It's my
recollection. My logic is perfect you cannot attack it. So you will
resort to attacking my facts.
Prove me wrong.

--
Peter
Both my experience and my memory tell me that less than 2% of those on
the welfare program in the state of California are disabled either
mentally or physically. If you don't believe me, then you prove me wrong.
I believe it, and this is why I am against the governments welfare
program. It is not the case that I have to prove every fact that I know
in order to believe and advise everyone I talk to. Certainly you don't
prove every fact that you cite on this or any other forum. Nor do most of
those who post here. But when I make a mistake, those who disagree with
me are very quick to jump on it.....So, I am content to wait for that to
happen. It is not enough for you to not believe my statistic. You must
come up with one of your own. If I am wrong, and you believe that I am so
wrong that my point is unbelievable, then YOU prove it so.....Just how
many disabled people would have to be on welfare before you would
consider the program acceptable? Or, would you accept the program as it
stands even if my statistic were correct? I believe the latter is the
case, so why should I bother with you? I have never found in the past
that liberals are persuaded by facts, so why should I bother now?


You need not prove every fact. Just the rock on which your argument rests.
If I prove you wrong, will you agree to donate a pre-designated amount to
a non-religious charity I support, such as Second Harvest, or it's
equivalent in your area?


--
Peter
Sure, especially if the charity is for animals.....I love and have great
empathy for animals. But there have to be some rules.....I speak of
California State welfare recipients, and not those on disability.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...

Can you say derivatives?
Amazing, you have actually spouted a "liberal" concept. It's your own
fault your car was stolen. You left the keys in it.

--
Peter
The derivatives were a spin-off of the basic problem. People who saw it
coming were making money by gambling on it. It's the original problem
that caused the crash. And that was expecting the real estate market to
continue to rise forever. (nothing rises forever) and making risky
loans based on that stupidity. And the democrats are still encouraging
the banks to do that, and backing them up with my tax
dollars.......there is no end to their stupidity.
Whoosh~

They were selling the derivatives to customers while betting that they
would go bad.

The customers that were buying these derivatives were highly
sophisticated gamblers. They should have known better. I certainly didn't
buy them, because I don't play the markets that way. I have my retirement
funds invested in much more stable instruments. I don't, in general
gamble in the stock market, although I have been known to take a chance
now and then, but always on a small scale. (relatively) And, when I do, I
am never surprised when I lose.


The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
were pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying
AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bull****.

--
Peter
Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for those
who have this power and misuse it? It seems to me that such things would be
easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by rocket
scientists. Has it become politicized? does every "regulation" bill carry
some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some undeserving
person or organization? Why can't our government handle even the simplest
task without F****** it up?

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Gill Collins" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 12:46:20 -0400, "Peter"

wrote:

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"David Ruether" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...

There are straights, gays, bisexuals and experimenters. I say it
doesn't
matter.
All are entitled to equal legal and ethical treatment.

I agree with that! ;-)

Please note that I leave off pedophiles. IMHO they should be
eunichized,
preferably in some sort of painful manner such as hot tar after
feeding
them caffeine to intensify the pain.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure about this. While I'm wholly against ANY
forced sex (or even "enticed" sex), the issue of pedophilia can be
much more complex than most people are willing to think about or
consider (dang those prejudices and the willingness to jump to
untrue conclusions! ;-).

I agree with you completely about forced sex, but as to enticement,
we
differ, provided both are emotionally and intellectually on an equal
playing field. Indeed most of the fun of sex in in the hunt, or
enticement.

My big issue with pedophilia is that there is not an equal playing
field.
A young child simply is emotionally and intellectually incapable of
granting consent.

Then, let's say, "enticed sex with minors"...;-) I'm with you also on
sex with most sub age-of-consent minors and what we would both
agree are children, but some few of those not-quite-legal are quite
eager for sex with those older than themselves for the information and
experience that they can get from it. Still, there are legal
prohibitions
against this (with stiff penalties) in the US for sometimes good
reasons...

As to morons & idiots, should they be sterilized?
I say yes, with real safeguards! --
Peter

'Pends on what you mean by "morons & idiots"...;-)

I am using the generally accepted definition in the psychological
sense.
Intelligence Quotient Scale: [Moron] = 50-69 Imbecile = 30-49 [Idiot]
=
29 & below. --
Peter

This sounds rather a harsh solution for a problem that likely doesn't
exist. BTW, I have found those I've met with Down's Syndrome to
be among the nicest around, and one surprised me with the depth
of his knowledge about and understanding of art while at a good local
museum. I think one should be careful about making assumptions about
people, especially if they have possible consequences for them not in
their best interests..


Yes most kids with Down's who I have met are very sweet and loving. but,
that has nothing to do with their ability to rear children, or the
probable
mentality of their kids. Sterilization has no bearing on their ability
to
enjoy sex. It simply prevents procreation. IIRC if two morons bear a
child,
the odds that child will not be a genius are staggering. The burden of
bringing up and nurturing these people will fall on society. Unless of
course, you have in mind rearing generations of people who will perform
menial tasks that others prefer not to do.
BTW we do use these people to do such tasks as stuffing envelopes,
untangling the cords on your airline ear phones, painting fire hydrants,
etc.

People let their pets breed with even less intelligence and skills than
that, and still they feed them, provide shelter for them, and love them.
What's the problem?


You can't get welfare payments for your pets.....That's, "the problem".


Another Whoosh!
I ignored the response. Anyone who equates taking care of pets with
raising children is very scary. Even more scary than you whose religion is
his money.


--
Peter
Whose equating raising pets with children? I didn't make this
comparison....Someone else did this. He compared raising downs children with
raising pets, and I pointed out that the taxpayers don't have to support his
pets, but they do have to support children who are incapable of supporting
themselves. What's "woosh" about that?

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
"Peter" wrote in message
...
"Bill Graham" wrote in message ...

The customers that were buying these derivatives were highly sophisticated gamblers. They should have known better. I certainly
didn't buy them, because I don't play the markets that way. I have my retirement funds invested in much more stable instruments.
I don't, in general gamble in the stock market, although I have been known to take a chance now and then, but always on a small
scale. (relatively) And, when I do, I am never surprised when I lose.

I have been "lucky" in the stock market (dumb luck?), although I've
made my share of dumb moves (once buying a "penny" stock, and
being also impatient and selling a real winner or two far too soon...).
In the last year, if you couldn't make "a killing" almost by throwing a
dart at a list of stocks, well.... (and Ford and Apple were SO obvious!).

The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities were pension fund managers who were duped into believing
they were buying AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bull****.
--
Peter

'Course! A good example of an unregulated "hidden" market at work...

Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for those who have this power and misuse it?

'Cuz that wasn't illegal (but should have been - but that would have
been "socialistic" to have regulated these "securities", so.....;-).

It seems to me that such things would be easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by rocket scientists. Has it
become politicized?

You bet! The Democrats are for regulation of these markets that have
caused so much grief, and the Republicans are grudgingly now coming
along since they see what damage not doing so would do to their
election bottom line (not so much why these regulations are needed
for the economic health of the country, alas). But they again are not
above lying about what is in the proposed bill, and its consequences.

does every "regulation" bill carry some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some undeserving person or
organization? Why can't our government handle even the simplest task without F****** it up?

Huh???
Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
--DR

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...

The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
were pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying
AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bull****.


Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for
those who have this power and misuse it? It seems to me that such things
would be easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by
rocket scientists. Has it become politicized? does every "regulation" bill
carry some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some
undeserving person or organization?


Moody's & Standard & Poor. Do your own research.

Why can't our government handle even the simplest task without F****** it
up?

Too many people don't want to pay for proper oversight. They claim it's an
intrusion into our rights.

--
Peter

On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
wrote:

Huh???
Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).

If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
they couldn't pay their debts.

I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
and make it impossible for anyone else to fix