Ford Gives Finger to America and American Employees

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:35:54 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:49:08 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>>
>>>> But the concept of
>>>> community, cooperation and responsibility continue to confound you.
>>>
>>>The USA was founded on the principles of individual liberty. You get
>>>community, cooperation and responsibility with property rights and
>>>respecting the rights, the liberty of your neighbors in a free market
>>>economy.
>>>
>>>You can't get "community, cooperation and responsibility" by coercion
>>>and theft of property. In fact, you get the opposite (theft,
>>>leaching, fighting over resources, and blaming society) rather
>>>frequently. But that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying.
>>
>>
>> Ah, libertoon rant. Moron alert. Plonk.
>
> Another open minded individual heard from... lol.

What the flaming hell would you know about "open minded".

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:30:25 -0700, The Trucker >
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:35:54 -0500, Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> On 2008-06-04, > wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:49:08 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But the concept of
>>>>>> community, cooperation and responsibility continue to confound you.
>>>>>
>>>>>The USA was founded on the principles of individual liberty. You get
>>>>>community, cooperation and responsibility with property rights and
>>>>>respecting the rights, the liberty of your neighbors in a free market
>>>>>economy.
>>>>>
>>>>>You can't get "community, cooperation and responsibility" by coercion
>>>>>and theft of property. In fact, you get the opposite (theft,
>>>>>leaching, fighting over resources, and blaming society) rather
>>>>>frequently. But that doesn't stop the control freaks from trying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, libertoon rant. Moron alert. Plonk.
>>>
>>> Another open minded individual heard from... lol.
>>
>>What the flaming hell would you know about "open minded".
>
>
> It's clear his mind was open long enough for someone to mistake it for
> a garbage can and dump their libertoon **** in it.

I'm sorry you cannot defend your control freakism.

and thus The Trucker inscribed ...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:19:12 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
>> On 03 Jun 2008 09:48:34 GMT, Siemens Tech > wrote:
>>> It's a study in corporate suicide by stupidity for failing to
>>> address the demands of a market.
>> The market was demanding SUVs, and that's a fact.
> Yup. All based on Madison Ave. propaganda and sexist stupidity. And if

You know, that just reminded me about the sexist marketing of the SUV. For Men, it was to become more manly, do manly things like go off-road and cut timber and haul big pieces of rock. For Women, who might have wanted to haul timber, it was marketed as being the super safe for your kids when you plowed into someone.
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

On Jun 4, 4:38*pm, ~consul > wrote:
> and thus The Trucker inscribed ...
>
> > On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:19:12 +0000, Dave Head wrote:
> >> On 03 Jun 2008 09:48:34 GMT, Siemens Tech > wrote:
> >>> It's a study in corporate suicide by stupidity for failing to
> >>> address the demands of a market. *
> >> The market was demanding SUVs, and that's a fact.
> > Yup. *All based on Madison Ave. propaganda and sexist stupidity. And if
>
> You know, that just reminded me about the sexist marketing of the SUV. For Men, it was to become more manly, do manly things like go off-road and cut timber and haul big pieces of rock. For Women, who might have wanted to haul timber, it was marketed as being the super safe for your kids when you plowed into someone.

Never mind that for actually hauling rocks or big chunks of wood, a
3/4 ton pickup with a rubber floor mat and vinyl seats would be a FAR
better choice.

nate

~consul wrote:

> You know, that just reminded me about the sexist marketing of the SUV.
> For Men, it was to become more manly, do manly things like go off-road
> and cut timber and haul big pieces of rock. For Women, who might have
> wanted to haul timber, it was marketed as being the super safe for your
> kids when you plowed into someone.

like the Kenworth T60 my daughter drives.

--
Requiescas in pace o email Two identifying characteristics
of System Administrators:
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio Infallibility, and the ability to
learn from their mistakes.
Eppure si rinfresca

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 13:22:57 -0500, Brent P wrote:

> On 2008-06-04, The Trucker > wrote:
>> I Wrote every word of it.
>
> citing yourself is so.....

You want me to publish the damned thing every time I run into another
moron? I think not. The proposal cites the sources that are necessary to
the proposal. If you have a problem with those cites just let it be known.

>
>>> Less economies of scale? Economy of scale, is that you are calling
>>> central control now? Is that how you rationalize having a central
>>> authority in washington DC decide the most important personal individual
>>> decisons there are for us?
>>
>> There are definite benefits for economies of scale. Your abject ignorance
>> is showing.
>
> Just hand your life over to beuracrats in DC!

(snicker).... The concept of accountable local representatives just will
never get past that steel helmet, will it.

>>> You show no mechanism to make them accountable.
>> Lie.
>
> You don't know what a lie is. Where's your mechanism then?

Local representatives in smaller districts. That seems clear enough. How
do you keep yourself from not knowing what the proposal says?

>>> The Ds and Rs will still
>>> control election law they will control the boundries of the districts.
>>
>> Take it to the limit, ignoramus: Let us have representative districts of
>> 10 people (or one people). You think you can gerrymander that? Good
>> luck. The more populous the districts the more easy it is to gerrymander.
>> You lose again.
>
> LOL. now that you've admitted the failure of your proposal you want to
> go to direct democracy, aka 'mob rule'

I am arguing with an illogical moron. Have you aver heard of the concept
of taking an idea to the limit of the idea to make sure that you are going
the correct direction. There is probably some fancy Latin name for it,
but I do not know what it is. You, on the other hand have offered NOTHING
in the way of rationale or reason or logic. Just a mantra.

>>> It will be the same game, just more of it. Simply having a smaller
>>> district does not make an elected offic holder more accountable.
>
>> Let us reduce the size of the represented constituency to 10 (or one).
>> Are you telling us that you would "represent" some alien force other than
>> yourself?
>> You lose again.
>
> When you need to strawman your own argument, you lost.

No, moron. It is taking the idea to the extreme in order to test its
efficacy. Again you have no rationale, no reason, no logic, no nothing to
refute the efficacy of what I have proposed.

>> Glad you mentioned the Libertarians and the Greens and the like. Because
>> we would actually see a LOT more 3rd party affiliated persons in the House
>> of Representatives. I said this would bust the duopoly and I was dead
>> serious.
>
> You provide no mechanism to break the two party system. I grow tired of
> this. It's clear you haven't thought things through or are looking to
> just hide your desire for central control. Probably both.

It is clear that you are incapable of reasoned logic. That you have a
religious hangup that prevents you from knowing anything that might
contradict your religious preference. You have not logically or
rationally rebutted anything I have put forward. Nothing but prancing
pig **** and bluster.

> To me it seems you just think you can change things to get the central
> control you'd like best and be able to force people who don't see it
> your way to obey.

How the flaming hell do you think that I am going to control 1740 people
scattered all over the USA? Not even you are that stupid. You are a lying
pig.

> If you really want to learn about decentralized government, free people,
> etc go he http://www.lewrockwell.com/

I took a look. Typical rightarded revisionism as usual. My site
references actual historical documents in the historical archives and the
stuff from _historians_ as opposed to right or left wingnuts.
Libertarians are religious fanatics who simply cannot accept the real
world.

>
> Buh bye.
>
> <snip, unread>

Translation "I can not stand to get my stupid ass kicked any longer. I
will declare victory and leave".

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:53:41 -0500, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:46:47 -0500, Brent P
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>HEre's a clue for you: GOVERNMENT IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. IT DOESN'T CARE
>>>ABOUT YOU. TO GOVERNMENT YOU ARE ITS PROPERTY TO USE UP AND DISPOSE OF
>>>AS IT SEES FIT.
>>
>>
>>In the US the government is you and your neighbors.
>
> ROTFL. Nobody's really that naive, are they?

Many of us aren't: http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

>>But the concept of community, cooperation and responsibility continue
>>to confound you.
>
> Where "community" = paying taxes, "cooperation" = obedience to the
> dictates of government and "responsibility" = paying taxes again.

So get it fixed: http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

"The Trucker" > wrote in message
news
> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:43:33 -0700, Clave wrote:
>
>> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
>> news
>>> On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 22:41:56 -0700, Clave wrote:
>>>
>>>> "The Trucker" > wrote in message
>>>> news
>>
>> <...>
>>
>>>>> Between 1999 and 2001 the number of ads in the Seattle Times for
>>>>> software people went from 5 pages to 5 ads.
>>>>
>>>> Are you kidding? That was market forces. The ads didn't disappear,
>>>> they
>>>> moved online and multiplied.
>>>>
>>>> With monster.com and its like around then, what kind of software talent
>>>> was going to rely on local print for job leads?
>>>
>>> Nope. It was indicative of the crash in tech stuff.
>> ^
>> correlative
>
> I am not real sure what you are trying to do with all this. There was a
> much advertised and ballyhooed "dot.com" bust, and a zillion H1B's from
> India. That isn't really debatable. It just _IS_...

Again, so what? It doesn't make whatshisname's "80-hour work week,
deplorable working conditions, etc." any less nonsense.

Jim

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:10:07 -0400, JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:

> The Trucker wrote:
> I trust the medical profession to make those decisions and that is who will
> be making those decisions. I certainly do not want you making such
> decisions and given a proper representative government. I will not be EVER
> have to worry about you getting anywhere close to such a decision making
> position.<<<<
>
>
> How can you be so naive as to think Doctors will have any say over your
> health care ?

How can you be so naive as to think differently when all of the rest of
the civilized nations do it MY WAY.

> Do you remember Hillary care ?

Yes. It is one big reason why Hillary is not the Democratic nominee. She
sucked up to the private insurance companies and ended up with a piece of
crap.

> She spent months drawing up a plan for socialized medicine.
> Do you know how many doctors were were consulted during the months of work
> ?.....NONE !!!

Well.. That is probably irrelevant when talking of the health insurance
as opposed to the actual delivery of services.

> And you think a doctor will make your health
> decisions.........HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nice pig **** blustering. You got anything of substance?

> It will be all up to some nameless bean counter to decide if you can get
> that knee replacemant.
> He will take your age, your weight and your health into consideration and
> make a decision.
> If the decision is "NO", you will live with your old knee.

I am living with my old knee right now. Have been for 2 years and trying
to heal it on my own. We will see.

--
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers
of society but the people themselves; and
if we think them not enlightened enough to
exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from
them, but to inform their discretion by
education." - Thomas Jefferson
http://GreaterVoice.org/extend

On 2008-06-04, > wrote:

> As it is now in the US your medical decisions are not being made by
> doctors but by insurance company bureaucrats. Most doctors in the US
> now have to hire one or two people just to pursue approvals and
> insurance payments and navigate all the insurance company red tape.
>
> But Jerry wants to pretend that's not happening. Just like he wishes
> to pretend the countries that have national health care don't pay 50%
> of what we do, have greater job mobility and the businesses are more
> competitive because they don't have the high health care costs of the
> US. And medicare and medicaid pay far less overhead than private
> insurers.
>

The present condition with insurance companies was created by government
interference in healthcare. Government interfered with it's own
government programs and the tax law. What we have now is the result of
that interference. Only a fool would believe that a complete take over
by the government would result in a better situation. It's like taking
your car back to a mechanic who broke more things than he fixed last
time.

> But you can't teach a neocon anything.

But you can't teach a statist anything.

FTFY.