George Bush Doesn't Know When To Fold 'Em
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 17:41:33 GMT

--------

Y'all shouldn't be missing the " Rude Pundit" blog:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2005/02/george-bush-doesnt-know-when-to-fo
ld.html

George Bush Doesn't Know When To Fold 'Em:

Do you think anyone's told President Bush that his Daddy's friends
can't bail him out this time if his "business" (that'd be, you know,
America) goes belly up? 'Cause, see, and really, that's the pattern of
Bush's business life: run a company into the ground and then wait around
until someone who wants some of that Bush-name glory comes over with a
wad of cash for a buy-out or infusion. Like all wannabe wildcatters,
Bush knows that he's gotta be a gamblin' man. The problem is, of course,
that real gamblers know, well, when to walk away. Bush is a gambling
addict, and he's got the biggest wad of cash in history on loan from the
nation. Problem is that the vig on that wad's a motherfucker, and it's
gonna come due. And you can bet that it ain't Bush's legs that're gonna
be broken.

Here's Bush, man, and he's placed his fuckin' bets - he bet against the
spread on Medicare prescription drugs, usin' his beards in Congress to
put down the lowball cash. And he might've gotten the campaign issue,
but the juice is makin' Bush into a chump. He put the billions on the
outlaw line in tax cuts, and that son of a bitch has given nothin' back
to the nation that's fronted the money to Bush. And now he's doin' the
same with Social Security, wantin' to lay out the billions and trillions
on a sucker's bet that the stock market's gonna do some magic mambo and
pay off like a double pop on a longshot nag that gets a bottle of
Frank's shoved up its ass.

Like every pathetic gambling addict before him, Bush is hittin' the
pawnshop as he gets ready to pony up. He's standin' before that gated
cashier, pullin' shit out of his bag, sayin', "C'mon, man, how much can
you give me? I got a job trainin' program here - motherfuckin' veterans
don't need no trainin' if we keep stop-gappin' their asses. Gimme $500
mill for that. I got grants to states for police and firefighters - man,
just let everyone carry guns, and who the fuck needs fancy fuckin' cops.
How much, man, how much? How about $540 mill for the cops and $215 mill
for the firemen? Shee-it, that'd shove a firehose up their asses, huh?
Huh? C'mon, man, laugh with me, it's all I got, shee-it. C'mon, I gots
to keep my tax cuts permanent, man. Work with me here, bitch.

I got .... I got other cuts here, man, shit, like trainin' for medical
personnel, that's gotta get me like a couple hundred mill. And heatin'
for old people, what'll you give me for that? Can I get a couple mill
for programs to help people with brain injuries? C'mon, c'mon, I'm doin'
what I can here, but I need the cash, man, cash motherfuckin' money for
that added game, the Iran bet that's comin' up on the board. Lessee, I
got a clean water fund. Man, everyone just drinks Poland fuckin'
Springs. Gimme $360 mill for that bitch. What's that get me? C'mon,
don't ask me where I got this shit. Just gimme the cash money. I'll just
borrow the rest from Johnny China across the big ol' Pacific."

An addict'll pawn it all. The future, the present. He'll raid the kids'
piggy banks and empty their college funds. 'Cause always, around the
next corner, is the big win, the one that'll make 'em into a wise guy.
Problem is, 'cause he's an addict, he'll keep goin' double or nothin',
double or nothin'. Problem is that we're the suckers Bush keeps stealin'
shit some to try to parlay the spot into big money. Problem is: once a
gamblin' loser, always a gamblin' loser.

--

HellPope Huey
Doin' the Lindy to Hendrix

Surprised lady in restroom:
"Hey, this is for ladies only!"
Peter O'Toole, inebriated:
"And so is *this*, ma'am,
but every now and again
I have to run a little water through it."
~ "My Favorite Year"

I can't put a sentence together -
thank God I can take my clothes off.
~ Sharon Stone


Correspondent:: ""
Date: 10 Feb 2005 17:49:34 GMT

--------
HellPope Huey posted:

> Problem is: once a gamblin' loser, always a gamblin' loser.


problem is:

name an instance of someone like this being stopped.



nixon? hardly. kennedy, perhaps.




--
"The price of greatness is responsibility." Churchill


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 11:37:57 -0700

--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> ...The problem is, of course, that real gamblers know,
> well, when to walk away.

Yeah, but you've seen that picture of the poker playing
dogs? Imagine Bush playing with those dogs and there
is a great big pile of chips in front of Bush, not because
he's a good poker player, but because he is playing freaking
dogs.

One of the dogs even looks like Howard Dean.

--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet


Correspondent:: "Bush Retarded"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:26:51 -0800

--------

"nu-monet v7.0" wrote in message
news:420BAA05.7392@succeeds.com...
> HellPope Huey wrote:
> >
> > ...The problem is, of course, that real gamblers know,
> > well, when to walk away.
>
> Yeah, but you've seen that picture of the poker playing
> dogs? Imagine Bush playing with those dogs and there
> is a great big pile of chips in front of Bush, not because
> he's a good poker player, but because he is playing freaking
> dogs.
>
> One of the dogs even looks like Howard Dean.
>

Actually, ALL the dogs look like Bush's concubine, Condi Rice.



Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 10 Feb 2005 12:56:41 -0800

--------
Yeah, but you've seen that picture of the poker playing
dogs? Imagine Bush playing with those dogs and there
is a great big pile of chips in front of Bush, not because
he's a good poker player, but because he is playing freaking
dogs.

I think you are underestimating the Dogs! After all, they can smell
fear AND a full house!
One of the dogs even looks like Howard Dean.



Correspondent:: Lady Chatterly
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 21:31:31 GMT

--------
In article <1108069001.519963.229070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
>
>Yeah, but you've seen that picture of the poker playing
>dogs? Imagine Bush playing with those dogs and there
>is a great big pile of chips in front of Bush, not because
>he's a good poker player, but because he is playing freaking
>dogs.
>
>I think you are underestimating the Dogs! After all, they can smell
>fear AND a full house!
>One of the dogs even looks like Howard Dean.

I am not sure who claims to be happy to answer it.

--
Lady Chatterly

"Whatever you say Lady Chatterly. Do you wear a dress when you run
that bot?" -- Klyf Fenderson



Correspondent:: "Talysman the Ur-Beatle"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 04:18:50 GMT

--------
HellPope Huey wrote in news:Slapyomammy-
BDC1C1.11424110022005@news1.west.earthlink.net:

> George Bush Doesn't Know When To Fold 'Em:
>
> Do you think anyone's told President Bush that his Daddy's friends
> can't bail him out this time if his "business" (that'd be, you know,
> America) goes belly up?

the problem with pointing out that Bush's policies will wind up destroying
America is that he (and his buddies who back his plan) damn sure *know* it
will destroy America; they're counting on it.

the conservative think tanks that came up with Bush's basic plan have
publicly stated, time and time again, that they want to return America to
the state it was in during the McKinley era. you know: the age of the
robber barons, with no environmental laws, no welfare state, no labor laws,
no restraints on businesses at all. they hate BOTH Roossvelts, Franklin
*and* Teddy (because Teddy pushed for conservation and was also a trust-
buster.)

they want Big Business to run things. the only government role they approve
of is that of bodyguard/bouncer for the robber barons.

--
Talysman the Ur-Beatle, STRAWGRASPER


Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:15:50 -0700

--------
Talysman the Ur-Beatle wrote:
>
> the conservative think tanks that came up with
> Bush's basic plan have publicly stated, time and
> time again, that they want to return America to
> the state it was in during the McKinley era. you
> know: the age of the robber barons, with no
> environmental laws, no welfare state, no labor laws,
> no restraints on businesses at all. they hate BOTH
> Roossvelts, Franklin *and* Teddy (because Teddy
> pushed for conservation and was also a trust-
> buster.)

Without returning to the McKinley era, I can envision
a much fairer America that has moved back in the
direction of the McKinley era. Let me cite some
examples.

1) Environmental laws. Teddy R is most objected to
because he started a policy of federal land-grabbing
that has now consumed the vast majority of the West.
A State's land is supposed to be *its* property, not
the property of the federal government. Constitutionally,
the feds have the *right* to the property which *they*
need to operate, that is, to build their buildings on,
but they have no constitutional right to grab everything
that isn't nailed down. To oppose such theft is hardly
what I would call radical, any more than not wanting to
be touched all over by a street bum because he wants to
touch you all over.
As far as the rest of the environmental laws go, their
merits can be debated on an individual basis.

2) No labor laws. This can be seen in two ways, also.
Many States are seen as "anti-labor" because they have
right to work laws. But most of the people who live in
those States see RTW laws as "right not to have part of
your paycheck involuntarily taken away by a union" laws.
Unions, per se, are neither good nor bad--they are only
indicative that whatever business that has been unionized
has, in past, been abusive to its workers. Businesses
are also neither inherently good nor bad, and the blanket
solution of some labor laws to a good business may end
up hurting its workers as much as helping the workers who
are abused by a bad business.

3) No welfare state. There was a welfare state at the
time of McKinley, too. It was called the "poorhouse" and
it was sponsored at the County level. Its failing was that
many Counties were very stingy with resources for the poor.
However, *every* system that has been tried has had problems
as well as some solutions to the needs of the poor. The
debate is how such systems are to be organized to work for
the best for the most. The biggest argument against the
federal welfare state is the huge amount of money that is
depleted in the process, taken away from the benefits for
the poor.

4) No restraints on businesses at all. There are always
restraints on business, and not just governmental ones.
First of all, there are several "iron rules" of economics
that cannot be ignored, wished away, or legislated against
to any real effect. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act is so
outdated that it has become a joke--not used to break up
monopolies as intended--but by one competitor harassing
another. Other restraints on business were originally
intended to *help* a business by having a law passed in
its favor, but resulted in an unnatural business model
that fatally damaged that business in the long term.
Some restraints can be lumped together as "corporate
welfare", trade tariffs, even the relative "strength" of
the dollar vs. other currencies.

Put all together, everything you object to can be turned
on its ear and seen as a reasonable thing. But is it so?
Certainly there are going to be abuses, for example, what
you *think* of when you think of the lowering of
environmental quality standards. But not everything is
intended to be so crude. There are a lot of long standing
programs and systems that need to be seriously reformed
or eliminated.

--
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name


Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:23:07 -0800

--------
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:15:50 -0700, "nu-monet v7.0"
wrote:

>Put all together, everything you object to can be turned
>on its ear and seen as a reasonable thing.

You can take any statement in the world and turn it on it's ear and
-present it as- a reasonable thing. That doesn't necessarily mean
that people will see it as a reasonable thing.

As soon as somebody is deciding to present an idea turned on it's ear,
as soon as they decide to present an idea in any way which is not the
best and most objective interpretation they are able to make from the
facts ... well, what do you call that?

There's always some volition involved in doing that. At that point
the person is just a huckster, a politician in all the worst sense of
the word. A con man. The only people who really buy it are those who
were strongly biased towards the same law in the first place; and
have therefore made the same act of volition. And sheep.

Of course sheep represent the majority of a democratic voting
populace, so in a lot of ways it's moot.

But nobody is ever really fooled by that game, in any event, but fools
and people who prefer to let the wolves pull the wool over their eyes.

Presenting something as a reasonable thing which isn't a reasonable
thing is about as interesting a game as insisting that you have
suddenly grown a unicorn horn. (Assuming you haven't.)

You can stand there and insist on it as long as you want, and you can
insist on inventing absurd arguments ad infinitum. You aren't really
going to convince anybody. Some people will agree just to shut you
up. Some people will agree with you for political reasons; because
they like you or dislike the people you are arguing against. Maybe a
small handful of complete fools will believe that you really have
grown a unicorn horn.

But you won't have.

It's like the big business think tanks who played the game, for years,
of insisting that there's no such thing as global warming. If you
studied what their conclusions were based on it was pretty obvious
that they went into it hopelessly biased, and that there were very bad
leaps of logic involved. But it worked, people are sheep, and enough
people wanted to believe it, because they resent any kind of
concessions to environmentalism. Then recently they changed their
tune and they say "oh, yes there is such a thing as global warming.

But it's too late to do anything about it NOW."






--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
The world needs anger.
The world often continues to allow evil
because it isn't angry enough.
- Bede Jarrett



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 09:15:03 -0700

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> As soon as somebody is deciding to present an
> idea turned on it's ear, as soon as they decide
> to present an idea in any way which is not the
> best and most objective interpretation they are
> able to make from the facts ... well, what do
> you call that?

Necessary redifinition. Let me explain.

When someone is accused of being "anti-environment",
that is a hopelessly over-defined expression. It
sounds like they want to destroy the atmosphere and
annihilate all lifeforms. Nonsense.

Oh, but you say, it doesn't mean that. Well, if it
doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

And that is why you *have* to re-define. Otherwise,
you think it means one thing, and I think it means
something entirely different. *We* would not be wrong.
It is the axiom, the label, that is wrong.

"They" is the other over-definition. I would have to
lump myself together with "theys" on this one, but that
does not mean that I agree with much of anything posited
by the other "theys". It's that "they" might include
everybody who doesn't belong to PETA *and* Earth First.
Which is damn near everybody.

So, let's re-define what is so objectionable. It can
be done. Take for example the quantity of contaminants
that are permitted in drinking water, always good for a
laugh. Granted, this involves a lot of different
contaminants, many of which needs different filtration
systems to eliminate, and it also involves geography, in
that many places don't have a problem, and some places
have a lot of problems:

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#mcls

Now, the EPA can establish a few reasonable criteria.
First, what is the *maximum* level of a contaminant
that a person can consume each year. Now, while the
EPA is reasonably sure that *most* people can have
*up to* that amount of a contaminant each year, it is
not recommended that they do so, if they can avoid it.

But from that point, you start having a several
mathmatical problems.

The first is determining what *percentage* of the maximum
should be the target for decontamination. That is, you
have filtration that can remove *down to* the maximum for
1 cent per Liter of water. But that does not mean that
you can reduce the level of contaminant *down to* 20%
of maximum for only 2 cents per Liter. This involks the
"law of diminishing returns." You may be able to get down
to 40% for 2 cents/Lt, but to get to 20% might cost
$3/Lt.

Now, there are lots of people, who say that no, as in 0%
of a contaminant is acceptable. But this is unrealistic.
For many contaminants, this could only be achieved through
expensive reverse osmosis or distillation, both of which
are cost prohibitive, and really not scientifically needed.

(I've also heard arguments that "background radiation" is
not acceptable, and that things have to be cleaned until
there is no more background radiation. Which is impossible.)

Add to that, that many contaminants are necessary for
health. Tiny amounts of many trace elements are needed,
which is why you shouldn't just drink distilled water
instead of "filtered" water, which contains them. And
yet these same trace elements in higher percentage are
sometimes deadly poisons. Some health food stores even
sell trace mineral salts to add to drinking water for
this reason. (It also matters what form the trace
elements take, that is, what they are chemically
combined with, if any.)

Now, after explaining all this, it hardly seems fair that
in an argument between those who want the level of cadmium
reduced to .0025mg/Lt, and those who are satisfied with
the current level of .005mg/Lt, the former can call those
who are satisfied with the current standards "anti-
environmentalist".

And, there might even be a scientifically valid reason to
believe that, based on new research, if people consume
.005mg/Lt of cadmium contaminated water over an extended
period, it *may* cause cancer, say, in 1 more person per
50,000 than would have gotten it otherwise. But, goes
the argument, to reduce that contamination would cost $20M
a year to a thousand small cities whose budget is only a
fraction of that, would be cost prohibitive.

Last but not least, science is only now starting to
figure out the obscenely complex interaction of multiple
contaminants over an extended period in the human body.

So, there can be reasoned arguments all the way around,
without blanket generalizations of "they" and *anti-
environmentalist", or BTW, "environmentalist wacko".

This is not to say that there aren't plenty of kooks
around.

--
"I can imagine a LOT when it comes
to unimaginable power."
-- nu-monet


Correspondent:: "Doktor Dark"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 09:42:34 -0800

--------
Why bother with these friggin' debates? Might as well argue about how
many angels on the head of a pin. We're fucked anyway:

http://eces.org/archive/ec/



Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 11:54:37 -0800

--------
Why bother with these friggin' debates? Might as well argue about how
many angels on the head of a pin. We're fucked anyway:

5 angles can dance on a pin. But they can't stay there because "Bob"
will try and fuck them all at once.



Correspondent:: Zapanaz
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:24:45 -0800

--------
On 11 Feb 2005 09:42:34 -0800, "Doktor Dark" wrote:

>Why bother with these friggin' debates? Might as well argue about how
>many angels on the head of a pin. We're fucked anyway:
>
>http://eces.org/archive/ec/

Well it depends on the size of the pin and what order of angels you're
talking about, obviously. Do you mean like the Ophanim? The Thrones?
What size pin is this? Is it a metric or SI dimension? A pin the
size of Delaware? What what?

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Tech Suppport: "Have you made backups of your software and data?"
Customer: "I didn't know it had a reverse"



Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 13:43:00 -0700

--------
Zapanaz wrote:
>
> Doktor Dark" wrote:
>
> >Why bother with these friggin' debates? Might as
> >well argue about how many angels on the head of a
> > pin. We're fucked anyway:
>
> Well it depends on the size of the pin and what
> order of angels you're talking about, obviously.
> Do you mean like the Ophanim? The Thrones?
> What size pin is this? Is it a metric or SI
> dimension? A pin the size of Delaware? What
> what?

I have to disagree. First of all, angelic causality
is a myth. There is absolutely nothing to prevent two
angels from occupying the same space at the same time.
Nor is their size limited in such as way as that of
known organic lifeforms.

A good analogy would be an (when inflated) infinitely
sized (but currently uninflated) pufferfish and a tuba
solo. When in normal space the pufferfish might only
able to traverse the distance of of an angstrom per
fortnight to the melodious sounds of "O Solo Mio", and
thus *easily* fit with its ENTIRE congress of brethren
assembled on the head of a pin of whatever variety >
one angstrom; whereas, when fully inflated with aether
(air not being available in infinite quantity, and even
if it was it would generally muck up the experiment),
there are not enough pins in the entire UNIVERSE(tm)
large enough to cover the surface are of even the
pufferfish's genitalium to the tune of the Sex Pistol's
"God Save The Queen" (assuming a tubist and an air
environment for the tubist and tuba and maybe some
gravity and other stuff, like doughnuts and coffee and
$50, and a willingness of the tubist to perform "God
Save The Queen" in the air environment solely for the
purposes of the experiment.)

So you're wrong.

--
"Money can't buy you happiness,
but when you're poor, you can't
buy shit, and nobody will loan
you happiness."
--nu-monet


Correspondent:: "Rev. Richard Skull"
Date: 11 Feb 2005 11:52:04 -0800

--------
the conservative think tanks that came up with Bush's basic plan have
publicly stated, time and time again, that they want to return America
to
the state it was in during the McKinley era. you know: the age of the
robber barons, with no environmental laws, no welfare state, no labor
laws,
no restraints on businesses at all. they hate BOTH Roossvelts, Franklin

*and* Teddy (because Teddy pushed for conservation and was also a
trust-
buster.)


they want Big Business to run things. the only government role they
approve
of is that of bodyguard/bouncer for the robber barons.

It is Teddy Rooservelt who is responable for the present political
alignment of the parties. The GOP was a reforer party from the start.
They pushed to end slavery years before Ft. Sumpter.

The only problem is what happned when teh bills coem due? Will there be
any business left to run the US? Unlike the turn of the last Century,
the US is not 100% dependent on its own Natural Resources. (Even back
then we were not either) It was not uncommen for Europeans to invest in
the US in those days, but very few, if any, out right owned any US
Businesses. Over the past 20 years, the Germans, Japanese and now the
Chinese have been scooping up US Factories and investing more capital
in them then thier American Counterparts. Remember when the FOUR US car
makers cried for protection becuase the Japanese had takne over 10% of
the market?

Well the foreign car makers not have almost 50% (and on the west coast,
65 to 70%) and they gain every year.

If not for China's demand for steel, the few legacy mills (ones that
make steel from the ore to the finished product) would be closed down a
few years ago.

West of teh Mississpi, all the railroads now use Japanese made rails as
they of higher quality then the ones made at the only remaining US rail
rolling mill. The Germans have invested a few billions and developed a
new steel making process that bypased the coking process. Making their
steel mills automaticly 30% more productive.

About the only thing the USA makes now that other want has been jets.
But Airbus is kicking Boeings ass in that department too. And the
military jets we make are facing cheaper French, Russian, and Chinese
competitors that in the case of Dasault and the Russians are just as
good if not better then anything the US makes now, or we plan to make
in the future.

The CIA did a long term study and it was quickly squashed by the White
House. And probally cuase the recent "political purges" in that agency.
Based on current trends the US will no longer be the "Leader" in
business or Political fronts by 2020. We will become an econmic
backwater like the Fomer Soviet States as more and more of our
resources are owned by outsiders.

So as for the Conservatives, be careful what you ask for, you might get
it.