🚀 go-pugleaf

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>For the House of Representatives!?
>
><http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625>
>
>OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the 
>$165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers! 
>
>Holy crap. I want a job like that. Extended holidays, sleep at your 
>desk, diddle teenagers, free whores from Homeland Security, travel to 
>golf in foreign lands, and influence to sell when you leave your "public 
>service"! 
>
>What a DEAL!
>
>  
>
You're beinging to see why they work so hard to get elected, many times 
spending more to get elected than the total salary.

In ba.consumers bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
: For the House of Representatives!?

: <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625>

: OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the 
: $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers! 

: Holy crap. I want a job like that. Extended holidays, sleep at your 
: desk, diddle teenagers, free whores from Homeland Security, travel to 
: golf in foreign lands, and influence to sell when you leave your "public 
: service"! 

: What a DEAL!

: Almost TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS base salary *each* per year, and 
: they don't even have to show up at the office! Of course, that sum 
: doesn't include the perqs like per diem pay (untaxed), the hired staff, 
: the bribes and the FANTASTIC health and retirement benefits that you get 
: 'till the day you die. 

: And then, when your new boss tells you to at least show up five days per 
: week; well, then you WHINE about how he doesn't care about your family.

: According to one Republican goof-off (er, I mean, "incumbent"): "Keeping 
: us up here eats away at families," said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), who 
: typically flies home on Thursdays and returns to Washington on Tuesdays. 
: "Marriages suffer. The Democrats could care less about families -- 
: that's what this says."

: Your "family", Jack? Your family will probably be overjoyed at your 
: absence. I know I wouldn't want a lazy, corrupt pompous ass like you 
: slinking around the house feeling sorry for yourself. I would throw you 
: out in the red Georgia mud so fast, your head would spin like Linda 
: Blair's. If you aren't happy in Congress, Jack, maybe you should find a 
: real job. Why not consider resigning?

: You know what, Kingston? I voted third party in the last election, and I 
: don't give a particular housefly's fart about your fatcat family either, 
: you bum. I am much more concerned about *my* family, who lives on 
: slightly more than ONE TENTH of what you made in your freshman year in 
: Congress, without your benefits and your perqs.

: Republicans have gotten away with calling liberals "whiners" for 12 
: long, long years. It is time to take a cold hard look at who is whining 
: now and about what. 

: The last Congress "worked" a total of 103 days. That is seven fewer days 
: than the infamous "Do Nothing" congress of 1948. 

: Assuming-- generously-- that a Republican Congress member worked 8 hours 
: per day, that is a total work YEAR of 824 hours. Divide that by 52 weeks 
: in a year-- Kingston and his crybaby Congressional colleagues worked an 
: average of just under 16 hours per week last year. For that, we pay 
: these limp dicks a STARTING hourly wage of about $200.49. We give them 
: an office and a staff. We give them health and retirement benefits. We 
: give them a per diem.

: And what do we get? An interminable, unwinnable war? Platitudes? Moral 
: instruction from immoral simpletons? Massive debt? Restricted liberty? 
: Official thugs spying on our private lives? Reduced individual income? A 
: major American city still lying in rubble more than a year after a 
: hurricane? Untrustworthy elections? A nation divided, perhaps fatally?

: *This* is what we are paying you for? You bastard.

: A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8 
: hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell 
: you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before 
: you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their 
: family. 

: But the 109th Congress is special. So special, they need a special 
: place. With bars. And no golf. They need a REAL reason to whine about 
: being separated from their families.

Perhaps we should be happy that they only worked 103 days.  Think of the
damage they could do if they worked 260 days like the rest of us.  We
might be better off to pay them not to work at all!

Government will only improve when political action begins in local 
neighborhood groups (and that is a lot of work on top of our 260 days of 
work). 

Wayne
remove "spamthis." toreply

> Perhaps we should be happy that they only worked 103 days.  Think of
> the damage they could do if they worked 260 days like the rest of us. 
> We might be better off to pay them not to work at all!
> 
> Government will only improve when political action begins in local 
> neighborhood groups (and that is a lot of work on top of our 260 days
> of work). 
> 
> Wayne
> remove "spamthis." toreply
> 


Yeah, instead of having strong local and state governments, we have a 
huge, inefficient, power grabbing, and corrupt federal government.  NASA 
recently announced that they had "lost" the film footage from the Apollo 
moon missions, and no high quality copies were ever made of it.  The 
Director of NASA said: "misplacing these films isn't anyone's fault; 
it's just something that happens in large organizations."  Yeah right!  
The sheer incompetence of NASA is what caused it.  Those films 
represented the crowning achievement of NASA and perhaps of mankind, 
tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, etc., and NASA misplaces them?!?!  
They should have been locked in a safe behind a locked cage.  Only a 
federal agency could be that fucking stupid to lose the Moon films.  And 
why weren't they ever covnerted to high quality (lossless) digital?  I 
suppose they were misplaced before high quality digital video existed.  
So all we have is grainy videotaped images taken from the original 
broadcasts.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

>> Perhaps we should be happy that they only worked 103 days.  Think of
>> the damage they could do if they worked 260 days like the rest of us. 
>> We might be better off to pay them not to work at all!


    Reminds me of Nebraska where the one house non-partisan legislature 
is limited to alternate year sessions of 60 and 90 days unless 80 
percent of them agree to continue. The thinking is if they can't mess 
things up enough in that short period they do not deserve additional time.


>>
>> Government will only improve when political action begins in local 
>> neighborhood groups (and that is a lot of work on top of our 260 days
>> of work). 
>>
>> Wayne
>> remove "spamthis." toreply
>>
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of having strong local and state governments, we have a 
> huge, inefficient, power grabbing, and corrupt federal government.  NASA 
> recently announced that they had "lost" the film footage from the Apollo 
> moon missions, and no high quality copies were ever made of it.  The 
> Director of NASA said: "misplacing these films isn't anyone's fault; 
> it's just something that happens in large organizations."  Yeah right!  
> The sheer incompetence of NASA is what caused it.  Those films 
> represented the crowning achievement of NASA and perhaps of mankind, 
> tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, etc., and NASA misplaces them?!?!  
> They should have been locked in a safe behind a locked cage.  Only a 
> federal agency could be that fucking stupid to lose the Moon films.  And 
> why weren't they ever covnerted to high quality (lossless) digital?  I 
> suppose they were misplaced before high quality digital video existed.  
> So all we have is grainy videotaped images taken from the original 
> broadcasts.
> 
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----


-- 
   To reply via e-mail please delete 1 c from paccbell

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
> For the House of Representatives!?
>
> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625>
>
> OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the
> $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers!

Sounds like a HORRIBLE idea.  I'd rather have politicians get NOTHING
done than time to think up new ways to tax us.

bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:

>
> A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8
> hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell
> you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before
> you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their
> family.

 And not to mention so many get shit on, paid much less than their work
is worth, and have
the ever present "if you don't like this job, there is a illegal
immigrant or a man in India
that would be happy to take your place" over their heads. As an added
bonus, if they
lose their job and become homeless, they get accused of being "lazy
bums" or "drug users". Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?



>
> But the 109th Congress is special. So special, they need a special
> place. With bars. And no golf. They need a REAL reason to whine about
> being separated from their families.

 Coruption is as American as Apople pie. Perhaps more so. :|

On 8 Dec 2006 02:47:19 -0800, "zeez" <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:

>
>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>
>>
>> A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8
>> hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell
>> you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before
>> you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their
>> family.
>
> And not to mention so many get shit on, paid much less than their work
>is worth, and have
>the ever present "if you don't like this job, there is a illegal
>immigrant or a man in India
>that would be happy to take your place" over their heads. As an added
>bonus, if they
>lose their job and become homeless, they get accused of being "lazy
>bums" or "drug users". Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
>
>

Well, it seems to be outperforming whatever is in second place.

Do you have anything in mind to replace the form of government you'd
like to destroy if you weren't so pathetic?

zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
> bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote

>> A worker at a real job clocks about 2,080 hours per year. That is 8
>> hours per day, five days per week, 52 weeks per year. He doesn't tell
>> you what to do. He doesn't take his money out of your paycheck before
>> you even see it. Most don't blame their boss for destroying their family.

> And not to mention so many get shit on, paid much less than their work is worth,

Easy to claim.

> and have the ever present "if you don't like this job,
> there is a illegal immigrant or a man in India that
> would be happy to take your place" over their heads.

Only if you've been stupid enough to be
qualified for jobs where that is even possible.

> As an added bonus, if they lose their job and become homeless,

Only a fool becomes homeless and cant get
another job with an unemployment rate of 5%.

> they get accused of being "lazy bums" or "drug users".

Which is precisely what they are if they end up
in that situation with an unemployment rate of 5%

> Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?

Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

Rod Speed wrote:

> > Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
>
> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

 And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they
are not
dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
playing, power
hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold. Here's
a thread circa
2004 that talks  about it

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f

and a post from it:

I really hate the way this country is run these days. It makes
me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive on your
own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*

(comments throughout article)

http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml

>Excerpts:
>1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters
>By Deborah Frazier
>News Staff Writer

>About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging
trailers and
>wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.

>There's no rent, no tax, no water, no sewage system and no lights.

 So fucking what? They chose to live independently.

>And it's illegal.

 Because they didn't ask the gov't permission to live there, though
the
government doesn't "own" land, except in their minds,

>But an out-of-date federal mining law can create a lengthy,
>expensive process -- up to $30,000 in legal fees -- to get squatters
off the
>public land.

 Good, these people want to be left alone, so LEAVE THEM ALONE!

>"Some of the places are fairly primitive, but some have been there
longer and
>have developed the places into fairly substantial summer homes," said
Larry
>Gash of the regional Forest Service office in Lakewood.

>Tom Healy, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. Forest Service in
the White
>River National Forest, said, "In the 1980s, there were books out
there for
>$12.95 on how to live for free on public land.

>"It doesn't happen that way," he said....

 Because gov't busybodies and "paper kings"  have declared it. The
only thing that makes their claim "valid" is that they are in control
of
men with guns.

>But sometimes someone who really is mining the claim will build a
home and
>balk at leaving.

 I would too. If I was living there, I wouldn't want someone coming
up to my place, and telling me that I had to leave my own home. I
don't know
if the sheeple can understand this, but some people just don't want to
be
subject to all of the bullshit of society, and do just fine without
it. I live
in Los Angeles, and it makes me sick that I see so many homeless
people on the street, and yet so many abandoned/closed buildings which
could've been used
to shelter them. Part of it is due to all of the politics and red
tape.
Even non-homeless people have to go through a lot of shit just to keep
a
roof over their head, not to mention a huge number of poor people are
just one
paycheck away from losing their home. Miss a check, your fucked, and
it
does happen. Jobs are very hard to find as well. The people living in
these
mountains were the few lucky ones who managed to stay out of the huge
mess
we call "society".

 BTW: Despite the crap broadcast such as Ruby Ridge, and the
prevailing "wisdom" going around about people who live totally
independent
of society, I'm sure they are far more well adjusted as a whole than
people
in the city. They have to be in order to survive. In the city, I can't
even count the number of crack heads, gangbangers, prostitutes, and
"mal-adjusted" people I have seen *personally* when walking through
the streets. Of course there are also power hungry and abusive
business men,
corrupt police, people literally dying of stress, people getting fired
because their employer decided to "outsource" their job to India,
people
losing it and killing their employer, ect....

>And that's where the 1872 Mining Law acts its age -- the Forest
Service must
>prove that there was no mining going on and that the tenant never
intended to
>mine.
>It takes months or years to evict them. In the meantime, they live

for free.

 In other words, they are not paying some bean counter for the
FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT to SURVIVE.

>"It's a time-consuming, adversarial and contentious process,"

 Good! I hope these desk jockeys continue to have this shit thrown
their way!

>Gash said. When claimholders take the case to court, they lose. But

the Forest Service still
>has the legal expense.
>"In the 1960s, we had hippies running around, and they'd move into
any
>ramshackle whatever," Gash said. "They'd leave when we explained it,
and we'd
>usually demolish the place. But now, we prefer to have the owner do

it."

 Anyone else feel sick when reading this article. What happened to the
right to live *on your own* and the pursuit  of happiness?

>Congress tried to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law in 1993 to make it
easier to
>toss off squatters, but it was defeated by the mining industry.

 Haha!

>No one gets rich off a one-man gold mine.

 Did it ever come to these boneheads that some of the people living
there aren't interested in money, they simply want to live?

>"Few people can making a living off a mining claim," said Pat Keene,
publisher
>of Gold Prospectors' Digest in Nevada. Keen is also the largest
producer of
>portable mining equipment favored by solo prospectors. "Some do it
for
>recreation, but you don't make a lot of money."...

>The resident claimholders don't merely misuse federal land -- the
dwellings
>violate county water and sewage rules.

 Well it's their responsibility. If they get hurt, it's their problem.
I'm sure they're aware of that.

>Rangers checking unpatented claims have
>found sewage systems that vary from outhouses to a plastic bucket
kept outside
>the front door that's dumped in the river....

 Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
affect
them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
live in
peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
pollution.

zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote

>>> Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?

>> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

> And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they are
> not dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
> playing, power hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant paranoid fantasys.

> Here's a thread circa 2004 that talks  about it

> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f

> and a post from it:

Just more terminally silly shit.

> I really hate the way this country is run these days.

Then do the decent thing and top yourself or sumfin.

And whatever you may or may not like, IT LEAVES THE ALTERNATIVES FOR DEAD.

> It makes me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive
> on your own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant paranoid fantasys.

> (comments throughout article)

> http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml

>> Excerpts:
>> 1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters

Talk about a terminally stupid law.

>> By Deborah Frazier
>> News Staff Writer

>> About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging trailers
>> and wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.

No one would be able to stop them if it wasnt federal land, fuckwit.

None of the rest of the terminally silly shit worth bothering with.

On 9 Dec 2006 09:10:45 -0800, "zeez" <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:

>
> Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
>affect
>them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
>live in
>peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
>pollution.


Quit listening to the voices in your head, and try to remember to take
your pills on schedule.

There are many peopke who prefer not to run with the herd.. They want
to think for themselves, and are willing to pay the full price.  People
who live in the big cities are the ones whoo have difficulty with
reality, and must resort to mind altering drugs to survive.  The chief
difference between the ones the rich use and the ones the poor use are
that the rich get high quality prescriptionsfromtheir doctors.As  for
the way that claimjumpers and squaters live is not necessarily less
responsible than wealthy landowners who build huge homes and
businesses, Many of the rich use our rivers and streams as their
personal cesspools, and repeateatedly vote out any politicians who
suggests that they pay their fair share toward fixing  inadequate or
broken sewage systems.  Another example of this problem is from the
North American auto makers.  For more than fifteen years they have been
moaning and complaining about how Kyoto will break them, Yet several
foreign manufacturers have produced alternatives, and are making a nice
profit.  What really concerns me about these righties is that we in
Canada have elected them to our government in Ottawa.  I bet that this
could be censored in the U. S.
zeez wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > > Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
> >
> > Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.
>
>  And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they
> are not
> dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
> playing, power
> hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold. Here's
> a thread circa
> 2004 that talks  about it
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f
>
> and a post from it:
>
> I really hate the way this country is run these days. It makes
> me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive on your
> own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*
>
> (comments throughout article)
>
> http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml
>
> >Excerpts:
> >1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters
> >By Deborah Frazier
> >News Staff Writer
>
> >About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging
> trailers and
> >wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.
>
> >There's no rent, no tax, no water, no sewage system and no lights.
>
>  So fucking what? They chose to live independently.
>
> >And it's illegal.
>
>  Because they didn't ask the gov't permission to live there, though
> the
> government doesn't "own" land, except in their minds,
>
> >But an out-of-date federal mining law can create a lengthy,
> >expensive process -- up to $30,000 in legal fees -- to get squatters
> off the
> >public land.
>
>  Good, these people want to be left alone, so LEAVE THEM ALONE!
>
> >"Some of the places are fairly primitive, but some have been there
> longer and
> >have developed the places into fairly substantial summer homes," said
> Larry
> >Gash of the regional Forest Service office in Lakewood.
>
> >Tom Healy, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. Forest Service in
> the White
> >River National Forest, said, "In the 1980s, there were books out
> there for
> >$12.95 on how to live for free on public land.
>
> >"It doesn't happen that way," he said....
>
>  Because gov't busybodies and "paper kings"  have declared it. The
> only thing that makes their claim "valid" is that they are in control
> of
> men with guns.
>
> >But sometimes someone who really is mining the claim will build a
> home and
> >balk at leaving.
>
>  I would too. If I was living there, I wouldn't want someone coming
> up to my place, and telling me that I had to leave my own home. I
> don't know
> if the sheeple can understand this, but some people just don't want to
> be
> subject to all of the bullshit of society, and do just fine without
> it. I live
> in Los Angeles, and it makes me sick that I see so many homeless
> people on the street, and yet so many abandoned/closed buildings which
> could've been used
> to shelter them. Part of it is due to all of the politics and red
> tape.
> Even non-homeless people have to go through a lot of shit just to keep
> a
> roof over their head, not to mention a huge number of poor people are
> just one
> paycheck away from losing their home. Miss a check, your fucked, and
> it
> does happen. Jobs are very hard to find as well. The people living in
> these
> mountains were the few lucky ones who managed to stay out of the huge
> mess
> we call "society".
>
>  BTW: Despite the crap broadcast such as Ruby Ridge, and the
> prevailing "wisdom" going around about people who live totally
> independent
> of society, I'm sure they are far more well adjusted as a whole than
> people
> in the city. They have to be in order to survive. In the city, I can't
> even count the number of crack heads, gangbangers, prostitutes, and
> "mal-adjusted" people I have seen *personally* when walking through
> the streets. Of course there are also power hungry and abusive
> business men,
> corrupt police, people literally dying of stress, people getting fired
> because their employer decided to "outsource" their job to India,
> people
> losing it and killing their employer, ect....
>
> >And that's where the 1872 Mining Law acts its age -- the Forest
> Service must
> >prove that there was no mining going on and that the tenant never
> intended to
> >mine.
> >It takes months or years to evict them. In the meantime, they live
>
> for free.
>
>  In other words, they are not paying some bean counter for the
> FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT to SURVIVE.
>
> >"It's a time-consuming, adversarial and contentious process,"
>
>  Good! I hope these desk jockeys continue to have this shit thrown
> their way!
>
> >Gash said. When claimholders take the case to court, they lose. But
>
> the Forest Service still
> >has the legal expense.
> >"In the 1960s, we had hippies running around, and they'd move into
> any
> >ramshackle whatever," Gash said. "They'd leave when we explained it,
> and we'd
> >usually demolish the place. But now, we prefer to have the owner do
>
> it."
>
>  Anyone else feel sick when reading this article. What happened to the
> right to live *on your own* and the pursuit  of happiness?
>
> >Congress tried to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law in 1993 to make it
> easier to
> >toss off squatters, but it was defeated by the mining industry.
>
>  Haha!
>
> >No one gets rich off a one-man gold mine.
>
>  Did it ever come to these boneheads that some of the people living
> there aren't interested in money, they simply want to live?
>
> >"Few people can making a living off a mining claim," said Pat Keene,
> publisher
> >of Gold Prospectors' Digest in Nevada. Keen is also the largest
> producer of
> >portable mining equipment favored by solo prospectors. "Some do it
> for
> >recreation, but you don't make a lot of money."...
>
> >The resident claimholders don't merely misuse federal land -- the
> dwellings
> >violate county water and sewage rules.
>
>  Well it's their responsibility. If they get hurt, it's their problem.
> I'm sure they're aware of that.
>
> >Rangers checking unpatented claims have
> >found sewage systems that vary from outhouses to a plastic bucket
> kept outside
> >the front door that's dumped in the river....
>
>  Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
> affect
> them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
> live in
> peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
> pollution.

There are many peopke who prefer not to run with the herd.. They want
to think for themselves, and are willing to pay the full price.  People
who live in the big cities are the ones whoo have difficulty with
reality, and must resort to mind altering drugs to survive.  The chief
difference between the ones the rich use and the ones the poor use are
that the rich get high quality prescriptionsfromtheir doctors.As  for
the way that claimjumpers and squaters live is not necessarily less
responsible than wealthy landowners who build huge homes and
businesses, Many of the rich use our rivers and streams as their
personal cesspools, and repeateatedly vote out any politicians who
suggests that they pay their fair share toward fixing  inadequate or
broken sewage systems.  Another example of this problem is from the
North American auto makers.  For more than fifteen years they have been
moaning and complaining about how Kyoto will break them, Yet several
foreign manufacturers have produced alternatives, and are making a nice
profit.  What really concerns me about these righties is that we in
Canada have elected them to our government in Ottawa.  I bet that this
could be censored in the U. S.
zeez wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > > Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
> >
> > Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.
>
>  And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they
> are not
> dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
> playing, power
> hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold. Here's
> a thread circa
> 2004 that talks  about it
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f
>
> and a post from it:
>
> I really hate the way this country is run these days. It makes
> me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive on your
> own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*
>
> (comments throughout article)
>
> http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml
>
> >Excerpts:
> >1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters
> >By Deborah Frazier
> >News Staff Writer
>
> >About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging
> trailers and
> >wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.
>
> >There's no rent, no tax, no water, no sewage system and no lights.
>
>  So fucking what? They chose to live independently.
>
> >And it's illegal.
>
>  Because they didn't ask the gov't permission to live there, though
> the
> government doesn't "own" land, except in their minds,
>
> >But an out-of-date federal mining law can create a lengthy,
> >expensive process -- up to $30,000 in legal fees -- to get squatters
> off the
> >public land.
>
>  Good, these people want to be left alone, so LEAVE THEM ALONE!
>
> >"Some of the places are fairly primitive, but some have been there
> longer and
> >have developed the places into fairly substantial summer homes," said
> Larry
> >Gash of the regional Forest Service office in Lakewood.
>
> >Tom Healy, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. Forest Service in
> the White
> >River National Forest, said, "In the 1980s, there were books out
> there for
> >$12.95 on how to live for free on public land.
>
> >"It doesn't happen that way," he said....
>
>  Because gov't busybodies and "paper kings"  have declared it. The
> only thing that makes their claim "valid" is that they are in control
> of
> men with guns.
>
> >But sometimes someone who really is mining the claim will build a
> home and
> >balk at leaving.
>
>  I would too. If I was living there, I wouldn't want someone coming
> up to my place, and telling me that I had to leave my own home. I
> don't know
> if the sheeple can understand this, but some people just don't want to
> be
> subject to all of the bullshit of society, and do just fine without
> it. I live
> in Los Angeles, and it makes me sick that I see so many homeless
> people on the street, and yet so many abandoned/closed buildings which
> could've been used
> to shelter them. Part of it is due to all of the politics and red
> tape.
> Even non-homeless people have to go through a lot of shit just to keep
> a
> roof over their head, not to mention a huge number of poor people are
> just one
> paycheck away from losing their home. Miss a check, your fucked, and
> it
> does happen. Jobs are very hard to find as well. The people living in
> these
> mountains were the few lucky ones who managed to stay out of the huge
> mess
> we call "society".
>
>  BTW: Despite the crap broadcast such as Ruby Ridge, and the
> prevailing "wisdom" going around about people who live totally
> independent
> of society, I'm sure they are far more well adjusted as a whole than
> people
> in the city. They have to be in order to survive. In the city, I can't
> even count the number of crack heads, gangbangers, prostitutes, and
> "mal-adjusted" people I have seen *personally* when walking through
> the streets. Of course there are also power hungry and abusive
> business men,
> corrupt police, people literally dying of stress, people getting fired
> because their employer decided to "outsource" their job to India,
> people
> losing it and killing their employer, ect....
>
> >And that's where the 1872 Mining Law acts its age -- the Forest
> Service must
> >prove that there was no mining going on and that the tenant never
> intended to
> >mine.
> >It takes months or years to evict them. In the meantime, they live
>
> for free.
>
>  In other words, they are not paying some bean counter for the
> FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT to SURVIVE.
>
> >"It's a time-consuming, adversarial and contentious process,"
>
>  Good! I hope these desk jockeys continue to have this shit thrown
> their way!
>
> >Gash said. When claimholders take the case to court, they lose. But
>
> the Forest Service still
> >has the legal expense.
> >"In the 1960s, we had hippies running around, and they'd move into
> any
> >ramshackle whatever," Gash said. "They'd leave when we explained it,
> and we'd
> >usually demolish the place. But now, we prefer to have the owner do
>
> it."
>
>  Anyone else feel sick when reading this article. What happened to the
> right to live *on your own* and the pursuit  of happiness?
>
> >Congress tried to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law in 1993 to make it
> easier to
> >toss off squatters, but it was defeated by the mining industry.
>
>  Haha!
>
> >No one gets rich off a one-man gold mine.
>
>  Did it ever come to these boneheads that some of the people living
> there aren't interested in money, they simply want to live?
>
> >"Few people can making a living off a mining claim," said Pat Keene,
> publisher
> >of Gold Prospectors' Digest in Nevada. Keen is also the largest
> producer of
> >portable mining equipment favored by solo prospectors. "Some do it
> for
> >recreation, but you don't make a lot of money."...
>
> >The resident claimholders don't merely misuse federal land -- the
> dwellings
> >violate county water and sewage rules.
>
>  Well it's their responsibility. If they get hurt, it's their problem.
> I'm sure they're aware of that.
>
> >Rangers checking unpatented claims have
> >found sewage systems that vary from outhouses to a plastic bucket
> kept outside
> >the front door that's dumped in the river....
>
>  Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
> affect
> them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
> live in
> peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
> pollution.

margareth <mzebarth@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> There are many peopke who prefer not to run with the herd..
> They want to think for themselves, and are willing to pay the full price.

> People who live in the big cities are the ones whoo have difficulty
> with reality, and must resort to mind altering drugs to survive.

Corse none of the hayseeds have ever been into moonshine etc eh ?

> The chief difference between the ones the rich use and the ones the
> poor use are that the rich get high quality prescriptions from their doctors.

> As  for the way that claimjumpers and squaters live is not necessarily less
> responsible than wealthy landowners who build huge homes and businesses,
> Many of the rich use our rivers and streams as their personal cesspools,
> and repeateatedly vote out any politicians who suggests that they pay
> their fair share toward fixing  inadequate or broken sewage systems.

> Another example of this problem is from the North American auto
> makers.  For more than fifteen years they have been moaning and
> complaining about how Kyoto will break them, Yet several foreign
> manufacturers have produced alternatives, and are making a nice
> profit.  What really concerns me about these righties is that we in
> Canada have elected them to our government in Ottawa.

You could always do the decent thing and set fire to yourself in 'protest' or sumfin.

> I bet that this could be censored in the U. S.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed paranoid fantasys.


> zeez wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>>> Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
>>>
>>> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead
>>> anyway.
>>
>>  And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they
>> are not
>> dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
>> playing, power
>> hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold.
>> Here's a thread circa
>> 2004 that talks  about it
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.women/browse_thread/thread/64fd9e574fe5fd21/d6b78c9e386f882f
>>
>> and a post from it:
>>
>> I really hate the way this country is run these days. It makes
>> me angry that you have to ask permission just to survive on your
>> own without being dependent on anyone one else *PERIOD*
>>
>> (comments throughout article)
>>
>> http://www.insidedenver.com/news/1227sqat6.shtml
>>
>>> Excerpts:
>>> 1872 law makes it hard to evict squatters
>>> By Deborah Frazier
>>> News Staff Writer
>>
>>> About 100 "miners" live for free in refurbished cabins, aging
>> trailers and
>>> wood- frame shacks on federal land in Colorado's mountains.
>>
>>> There's no rent, no tax, no water, no sewage system and no lights.
>>
>>  So fucking what? They chose to live independently.
>>
>>> And it's illegal.
>>
>>  Because they didn't ask the gov't permission to live there, though
>> the
>> government doesn't "own" land, except in their minds,
>>
>>> But an out-of-date federal mining law can create a lengthy,
>>> expensive process -- up to $30,000 in legal fees -- to get squatters
>> off the
>>> public land.
>>
>>  Good, these people want to be left alone, so LEAVE THEM ALONE!
>>
>>> "Some of the places are fairly primitive, but some have been there
>> longer and
>>> have developed the places into fairly substantial summer homes,"
>>> said Larry Gash of the regional Forest Service office in Lakewood.
>>
>>> Tom Healy, a law enforcement officer for the U.S. Forest Service in
>> the White
>>> River National Forest, said, "In the 1980s, there were books out
>> there for
>>> $12.95 on how to live for free on public land.
>>
>>> "It doesn't happen that way," he said....
>>
>>  Because gov't busybodies and "paper kings"  have declared it. The
>> only thing that makes their claim "valid" is that they are in control
>> of
>> men with guns.
>>
>>> But sometimes someone who really is mining the claim will build a
>> home and
>>> balk at leaving.
>>
>>  I would too. If I was living there, I wouldn't want someone coming
>> up to my place, and telling me that I had to leave my own home. I
>> don't know
>> if the sheeple can understand this, but some people just don't want
>> to be
>> subject to all of the bullshit of society, and do just fine without
>> it. I live
>> in Los Angeles, and it makes me sick that I see so many homeless
>> people on the street, and yet so many abandoned/closed buildings
>> which could've been used
>> to shelter them. Part of it is due to all of the politics and red
>> tape.
>> Even non-homeless people have to go through a lot of shit just to
>> keep a
>> roof over their head, not to mention a huge number of poor people are
>> just one
>> paycheck away from losing their home. Miss a check, your fucked, and
>> it
>> does happen. Jobs are very hard to find as well. The people living in
>> these
>> mountains were the few lucky ones who managed to stay out of the huge
>> mess
>> we call "society".
>>
>>  BTW: Despite the crap broadcast such as Ruby Ridge, and the
>> prevailing "wisdom" going around about people who live totally
>> independent
>> of society, I'm sure they are far more well adjusted as a whole than
>> people
>> in the city. They have to be in order to survive. In the city, I
>> can't even count the number of crack heads, gangbangers,
>> prostitutes, and "mal-adjusted" people I have seen *personally* when
>> walking through the streets. Of course there are also power hungry
>> and abusive business men,
>> corrupt police, people literally dying of stress, people getting
>> fired because their employer decided to "outsource" their job to
>> India, people
>> losing it and killing their employer, ect....
>>
>>> And that's where the 1872 Mining Law acts its age -- the Forest
>> Service must
>>> prove that there was no mining going on and that the tenant never
>>> intended to mine.
>>> It takes months or years to evict them. In the meantime, they live
>>
>> for free.
>>
>>  In other words, they are not paying some bean counter for the
>> FUNDIMENTAL RIGHT to SURVIVE.
>>
>>> "It's a time-consuming, adversarial and contentious process,"
>>
>>  Good! I hope these desk jockeys continue to have this shit thrown
>> their way!
>>
>>> Gash said. When claimholders take the case to court, they lose. But
>>
>> the Forest Service still
>>> has the legal expense.
>>> "In the 1960s, we had hippies running around, and they'd move into
>> any
>>> ramshackle whatever," Gash said. "They'd leave when we explained it,
>> and we'd
>>> usually demolish the place. But now, we prefer to have the owner do
>>
>> it."
>>
>>  Anyone else feel sick when reading this article. What happened to
>> the right to live *on your own* and the pursuit  of happiness?
>>
>>> Congress tried to rewrite the 1872 Mining Law in 1993 to make it
>> easier to
>>> toss off squatters, but it was defeated by the mining industry.
>>
>>  Haha!
>>
>>> No one gets rich off a one-man gold mine.
>>
>>  Did it ever come to these boneheads that some of the people living
>> there aren't interested in money, they simply want to live?
>>
>>> "Few people can making a living off a mining claim," said Pat
>>> Keene, publisher of Gold Prospectors' Digest in Nevada. Keen is
>>> also the largest
>> producer of
>>> portable mining equipment favored by solo prospectors. "Some do it
>> for
>>> recreation, but you don't make a lot of money."...
>>
>>> The resident claimholders don't merely misuse federal land -- the
>>> dwellings violate county water and sewage rules.
>>
>>  Well it's their responsibility. If they get hurt, it's their
>> problem. I'm sure they're aware of that.
>>
>>> Rangers checking unpatented claims have
>>> found sewage systems that vary from outhouses to a plastic bucket
>> kept outside
>>> the front door that's dumped in the river....
>>
>>  Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
>> affect
>> them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
>> live in
>> peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
>> pollution. 

Rod Speed wrote:
> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
> > Rod Speed wrote
> >> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
>
> >>> Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?
>
> >> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.
>
> > And no wonder when any individual tries anything different, so they are
> > not dependent/locked in the death embrace with vindictive, jealous,game
> > playing, power hungry shits,  the gov't tries to force them back into the fold.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant paranoid fantasys.
>
<snip>

I guess you love being a good compliant little slave to people that
don't give a shit about you, and will let you die when it benifets
them. Each to his own, I guess.

Bob Ward wrote:
> On 9 Dec 2006 09:10:45 -0800, "zeez" <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
> >affect
> >them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
> >live in
> >peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
> >pollution.
>
>
> Quit listening to the voices in your head, and try to remember to take
> your pills on schedule.


 I guess that's something you have to do when society has you on it's
short leash.

zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> zeez <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote

>>>>> Isn't runaway capitalism wonderful?

>>>> Nothing runaway about it, and it leaves the alternatives for dead anyway.

>>> And no wonder when any individual tries anything different,
>>> so they are not dependent/locked in the death embrace
>>> with vindictive, jealous,game playing, power hungry shits,
>>> the gov't tries to force them back into the fold.

>> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant paranoid fantasys.

> I guess you love being a good compliant little
> slave to people that don't give a shit about you,

Guess again, child.

> and will let you die when it benifets them.

In spades with this one, child.

> Each to his own, I guess.

Pathetic, relaly. 

On 10 Dec 2006 04:27:03 -0800, "zeez" <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:

>
>Bob Ward wrote:
>> On 9 Dec 2006 09:10:45 -0800, "zeez" <UltimaUW@excite.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Where would society prefer sewage to be dumped so it doesn't
>> >affect
>> >them? I'm sure something can be worked out where the mountaineers can
>> >live in
>> >peace the way they are now, without society having to worry about
>> >pollution.
>>
>>
>> Quit listening to the voices in your head, and try to remember to take
>> your pills on schedule.
>
>
> I guess that's something you have to do when society has you on it's
>short leash.


Since you know absoutrely nothing about me or my lifestyle, I have to
wonder what sort of paranoid fantasies you are responding to.

In <1165442512.289953.3000@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com>, Larry Bud wrote:
>
>bearclaw@cruller.invalid wrote:
>> For the House of Representatives!?
>>
>> <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16065625>
>>
>> OMG! Elected officials might actually have to DO something for the
>> $165,200 per year each of them takes from the taxpayers!
>
>Sounds like a HORRIBLE idea.  I'd rather have politicians get NOTHING
>done than time to think up new ways to tax us.

  Or worse still, new/additional spending without taxation to support
such spending, so that the taxpayers pay later plus interest rather than 
now!

  Remember how between maybe the 1963 tax cut and now (late 2006) the 
Federal government has mostly been ridden with deficits, with a big 
exeption being Clinton's second term where the President faced a hostile 
Congress?

  Well, Reagan had to face an opposite-party Congress in his second term,
but back then people voted for Democrat congresscritters to "bring home 
the pork" and voted for a Republican president to protect themselves from
Democrat congresscritters other than their own.  Also, every fiscal year 
Reagan submitted to Congress a budget request with deficits close to those 
that finally resulted.

  Not that I consider Clinton some great angel - earlier in his 
administration before the surpluses that he presided over, he did oppose a 
deficit reduction bill known as "Penney-Kasich".

  And now and in recent years, I hear less about budget battles and 
deficit reduction while I hear as much as ever about pork!  Some fiscal 
year in his first term Dubla requested an $8B "energy bill" and did not
veto the $14B one returned to him!  Makes me think that Eisenhower was the
last "fiscal conservative" in the White House!  (Eisenhower even presided 
over cuts in Defense spending, and in 1960 boosting Defense spending was
one reason for Americans to vote Democrat!)

 - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

   What does welfare Rod know about a work week?

On 2006-12-06 13:36:01 -0600, grappletech <noone@removenowhere.biz> said:

> NASA recently announced that they had "lost" the film footage from the 
> Apollo moon missions, and no high quality copies were ever made of it.  
> The Director of NASA said: "misplacing these films isn't anyone's 
> fault; it's just something that happens in large organizations."  Yeah 
> right!  The sheer incompetence of NASA is what caused it.  Those films 
> represented the crowning achievement of NASA and perhaps of mankind, 
> tens of billions of taxpayer dollars, etc., and NASA misplaces them?!?! 
>  They should have been locked in a safe behind a locked cage.  Only a 
> federal agency could be that fucking stupid to lose the Moon films.  
> And why weren't they ever covnerted to high quality (lossless) digital? 
>  I suppose they were misplaced before high quality digital video 
> existed.  So all we have is grainy videotaped images taken from the 
> original broadcasts.
> 

Which are especially rare since the Apollo lunar missions were before 
consumers had VCRs.

-- 
To email me, drop the pretenses.

God may not be a Democrat, but He's certainly no Republican.  Don't 
settle for corporate values misrepresented as Christian values any 
longer.  Join the Project For a New American Populist Movement.
http://www.populism.us/


 Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------        
                http://www.usenet.com