Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / January 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Mexico Trip - Followup

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
John Kinney - 27 Dec 2005 17:12 GMT
Monday morning, we decided to leave El Paso and try to make it to Fort
Stockton TX on I-10. By the time we reached Van Horn TX in late
afternoon, however, the stress of previous days had taken its toll and we
were both exhausted. We stopped at a Pizza Hut, where the waitress told us
there was a very nice KoA only a few miles down the road.

She was correct.

The park is dusty, but with some actual grass and no large trees.
Unfortunately, the parking spaces are in line with the Mex117W satellite
we use, almost directly in the blind spot of the MotoSat Datastorm dish.
We gave it a try anyway, and the dish functioned like a trooper, trying
one side and then the other of the blind spot before settling on an
azimuth a few degrees to the east of the target azimuth for the satellite.
It spent about 20 minutes doing its search thing, before finally deciding
to peak the signal and do a transmitter test. After about 30 minutes of
suspense, we had fully functional Internet and TV.

In this case, it wouldn't have mattered that much, since the park's full
hookup fee here ($26) includes wireless and cable TV connections.  Still,
it's nice being able to carry our preferred TV lineup across the country
as we travel.

After the debacle with Verizon cellular in Chihuahua, I've decided to
seriously look at a VoIP telephone service.  I downloaded the Skype
software last night. I'd be interested in any comments or suggestions,
especially from folks using VoIP over a satellite internet connection.

Today, we've declared a day of rest. We're not in a hurry and figure to
take 3 more days to get to Livingston, TX.  We have contacted an old
friend who lives in Houston and are making arrangements to meet him and
his new lady for dinner one night.

Kathy continues to improve.  She's cut back about 50% on the meds
prescribed by the hospital.  We're hoping she'll be completely back to her
regular meds in a couple of days.

Things we've learned on this trip:

1.    If possible, buy Mexican health insurance (acceptable to the major
hospitals) for the trip as well as Mexican vehicle insurance.

2.    Don't trust Mexican customs officials to direct you into a traffic lane
that's safe for a big rig.

3.    Be prepared to translate any vehicle weights into kilograms.

4.    A Mexican heavy truck mechanic can accurately straighten a bent trailer
axle with an acetylene torch, an electric welder and an 8-foot-long piece
of 2-inch diameter steel pipe, without removing the axle from the trailer,
in about 4 hours, for about $100.

We've got a doctor's appointment for Kathy in Raleigh NC late in January.
We plan to take our time getting there.

Thanks to everybody here who expressed concern for Kathy and our various
predicaments -- and special gratitude to the Vasquez family of Villa de
Allende who went out of their way to stand by us at every moment.

Warm regards, John Kinney
Ken Harrison - 28 Dec 2005 07:14 GMT
> 3.    Be prepared to translate any vehicle weights into kilograms.

If I could ask one simple question, it would be "why the hell won't the
United States join the rest of the world in the use of the metric system?"

Not only is it inconvenient for US citizens to travel abroad with no
knowledge of this near-Universal system, but America's failure to use it
has cost untold numbers of high-paying jobs, lost to countries that do
use it.  Just check with the lumber industry to uncover the reason the
US ships (or shipped, I don't know if it is still going on) raw logs to
Japan.  The reason?  American mills refused to deliver lumber in metric
sizes.  The result?  Better paying mill jobs lost.  And don't blame the
environmentalists.  No responsible environmental organization opposes
tree farming.  American businesses can't look beyond the next quarterly
report (which, in itself, should be abandoned).

Ken H (always making new friends on this newsgroup).
Jim Redelfs - 28 Dec 2005 08:42 GMT
>> 3.    Be prepared to translate any vehicle weights into kilograms.

> If I could ask one simple question, it would be "why the hell won't the
> United States join the rest of the world in the use of the metric system?"

This is one situation where Big Brother<tm> should have simply DROPED THE
HAMMER when we attempted a conversion 10-15 years ago.  There was ostensibly a
"transition" period.  To my recollection, they/we just gave up on the plan.  
Dumb.   :(

> inconvenient for US citizens
> America's failure
> untold numbers of high-paying jobs, lost
> American mills refused
> Better paying mill jobs lost.

Rush *IS* right:  You liberals ARE a miserable lot.

> And don't blame the environmentalists.

Never.  They are in charge of saving the Earth.

> responsible environmental organization

An oxymoron if there EVER was one.  Or...

> No responsible environmental organization

Name one.

> American businesses can't look beyond the next quarterly
> report (which, in itself, should be abandoned).

Capitalism must be abandoned!

> Ken H (always making new friends on this newsgroup).

Just start posting as a Mexican citizen and we'll be happy.

            <sigh>
JR
Herald - 28 Dec 2005 17:10 GMT
>>> 3. Be prepared to translate any vehicle weights into kilograms.
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>             <sigh>
> JR

I have found Ken's message very factual so what is it with you idiotic
political BS? Was that really necessary.
William Boyd - 28 Dec 2005 15:21 GMT
>> 3.    Be prepared to translate any vehicle weights into kilograms.
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Ken H (always making new friends on this newsgroup).

I do not understand the problem. The weight data plate on all the latest
RVs that I have owned have the weights listed in pounds as well as
kilos. What weight information do the inspectors want that would have to
be converted?

Signature

BILL P.
Just Dog
  &
 ME

John Kinney - 28 Dec 2005 23:55 GMT
> I do not understand the problem. The weight data plate on all the latest
> RVs that I have owned have the weights listed in pounds as well as
> kilos. What weight information do the inspectors want that would have to
> be converted?

The trailer was not a problem.

Howerver, the delivered weight of our Ford F-550 hauler was listed on the
NC registration certificate in pounds, not kilos.  The Mexican customs
service window staff couldn't figure out the correct conversion. We had to
wait an hour and a half for a supervisor to return (probably from lunch)
before anybody would let us show the correct conversion on Kathy's
calculator and register the truck. A serious PITA.

Regards, John Kinney
William Boyd - 29 Dec 2005 01:20 GMT
>>I do not understand the problem. The weight data plate on all the latest
>>RVs that I have owned have the weights listed in pounds as well as
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Regards, John Kinney

That seems to just add to my confusion. Maybe they do it different for
Fords or larger trucks, but my Dodge 2500 has the weights on the door
post and they are stated in kilo with lbs in (#). My state registration
has no weights listed. But all there could be is Maximum Vehicle Weight
Rating, and that does not tell you how much it weighs. Do you think a
public scale weight ticket would help. What is the NC registration, you
mean North Carolina?

Signature

BILL P.
Just Dog
  &
 ME

Frank Tabor - 29 Dec 2005 01:31 GMT
I see where, William Boyd managed to write:

>>>I do not understand the problem. The weight data plate on all the latest
>>>RVs that I have owned have the weights listed in pounds as well as
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>public scale weight ticket would help. What is the NC registration, you
>mean North Carolina?

F550s are delivered as cab and chassis.  An aftermarket company puts
the body on the back.  The weights are very much different than the
"as delivered" cab and chassis.

An additional door tag was probably added by the aftermarket company,
but probably isn't bound to put kg conversions on it.
Signature

Frank Tabor

Unk - 29 Dec 2005 19:18 GMT
Hello Ken,

I just cannot agree with you on all points.  

A number of years ago (in the 20's or 30's I believe), the Senate was
looking into just that.  Until some senator from a New England state
quashed the entire investigation when he said he did not want to keep
his watch set on Greenwitch Mean Time.  Now just how stupid can our
congresscritters be?  

As far as mills shaping lumber to metric specs, I would have to see
more proof that you offer.  

As to weights, anyone that can't divide the weight by 2.2 is too
stupid to breathe fresh air.   Even the media can keep track of
hundreds of Key's (kilos) of MJ when reporting drug pops. Besides it
only takes about 10 seconds to "Google" the conversion more accurately
to 2.204.

I have a degree in Physics and feel very comfortable in either system
but I would prefer Metric.

You seem to want a change of our Capitalist system.  To what system
would you change?

Dean

>If I could ask one simple question, it would be "why the hell won't the
>United States join the rest of the world in the use of the metric system?"
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Ken H (always making new friends on this newsgroup).
Ken Harrison - 30 Dec 2005 08:08 GMT
> Hello Ken,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> his watch set on Greenwitch (sic) Mean Time.  Now just how stupid can our
> congresscritters be?
My agreement with you on this point does not foretell agreement on
subsequent points.:-)

 > As far as mills shaping lumber to metric specs, I would have to see
> more proof that (sic) you offer.
My information came from the mouth of a now dead person who indeed
worked in the industry.  I admit to having no more concrete proof than
my faith in a person whom I considered eminently reliable in all issues,
a former Coast Guard Commander, and all-around good soul, who like I was
deeply disappointed in the loss of higher-paying jobs to what we now
think of as "outsourcing."
> As to weights, anyone that can't divide the weight by 2.2 is too
> stupid to breathe fresh air.   Even the media can keep track of
> hundreds of Key's (kilos) of MJ when reporting drug pops. Besides it
> only takes about 10 seconds to "Google" the conversion more accurately
> to 2.204.
My point is, why should we have to?  Why should we feel that the rest of
the known world should do things our way?  This is one planet, and we
damned well ought to agree on some basic issues amongst the inhabitants.
> I have a degree in Physics and feel very comfortable in either system
> but I would prefer Metric.
Hee hee.  I have several degrees in music, so I am obviously more
comfortable with the "metric" system.
> You seem to want a change of our Capitalist system.  To what system
> would you change?
Au contraire.  I do not want to abandon the capitalist system.  I want
the capitalist system to be subject to reasonable checks so that it
cannot be used to continually take from the poor to give to the rich. I
want it to realize that this is one planet and as such it cannot be
allowed to poison other parts of the world to satisfy our constant
search for the inexpensive (remember, for instance, Bhopal).

There is nothing wrong about being a capitalist, as long as that
capitalist acknowledges that he has a greater responsibility to the
world around him than he has to himself.  And to the extent the
individual capitalist will not attend to the social responsibilities of
his business, that is where a government "of the people, by the people,
and for the people" must exercise its responsibility.  (Now where did I
get that phrase)?  Capitalism cannot be equated with greed;
unfortunately, many in this country do not understand the distinction.

> Dean
Ken
JerryD(upstateNY) - 30 Dec 2005 10:19 GMT
Ken,
Although you are on the right track, you base your judgment on some false
premises.
>>1....Au contraire.  I do not want to abandon the capitalist system.  I
>>want
the capitalist system to be subject to reasonable checks so that it
cannot be used to continually take from the poor to give to the rich.<<

This is false because 'the poor" have nothing to take.
Certainly not enough to make "the rich" any richer.
If they had anything, they wouldn't be poor.

>>2....There is nothing wrong about being a capitalist, as long as that
>>capitalist acknowledges that he has a greater responsibility to the world
>>around him than he has to himself.<<

The capitalist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
As soon as he is responsible for others, the system has become Communism
/Socialism  and we should all know how well that experiment has worked. (if
you don't know, it has failed every time it was tried)

>>>3....Capitalism cannot be equated with greed; unfortunately, many in this
>>>country do not understand the distinction.<<<

Greed is what energizes people to go out and work 12-14 hours per day.
Take away the people's incentive and everyone stops working.
This is why Communism/Socialism will never work.
Who is going to work 14 hours per day and get the same amount as his
neighbor who works 8 hours per day ?

Signature

JerryD(upstateNY)

GeoffP - 30 Dec 2005 20:34 GMT
> Ken,
> Although you are on the right track, you base your judgment on some false
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Who is going to work 14 hours per day and get the same amount as his
> neighbor who works 8 hours per day ?

There is a difference between greed and incentive Jerry.
Geoff.
JerryD(upstateNY) - 31 Dec 2005 05:27 GMT
>>>There is a difference between greed and incentive Jerry.  Geoff. <<<

What difference does it make what the incentive is ?
I think greed is the incentive in most cases.
Signature

JerryD(upstateNY)

> Although you are on the right track, you base your judgment on some false
> premises.
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> Who is going to work 14 hours per day and get the same amount as his
> neighbor who works 8 hours per day ?
Ken Harrison - 31 Dec 2005 06:46 GMT
> Ken,
> Although you are on the right track, you base your judgment on some false
> premises.<snip>

Hoo boy.  If one's life is about the exercise of greed, then he has a
pretty poor life.  What you write suggests that no one has any social
responsibility to anybody else.  That flies in the face of almost all
moral, ethical, and even biblical writing of the past several thousand
years; a real Mein Kampf for capitalism.  Not my idea of a quality life.

KH
John Andrews - 30 Dec 2005 16:16 GMT
>> Hello Ken,
>>
>> I just cannot agree with you on all points.
...snip...

>> You seem to want a change of our Capitalist system.  To what system
>> would you change?
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Ken

Wife and I just went through the Biltmore mansion in Asheville,
NC.  This is a massive demonstration of wealth.  The thing that
struck me was the enormous amount of money that was spent to
build this place and all the jobs that it created at the time it
was built and during all the time it was used, continuing to
this day.  I saw that the wealth was returned to the people for
their work and craftsmanship and skill in a thousand ways.  From
the photos of the work during construction, the building was
hard, but the workers were cared for in many ways including a
special train to take them to and from the work site.  Servants
were also fairly well cared for.  The fourth floor servants
quarters are now on display.  Really good quarters with nice
furnishings including bathrooms (unusual for the day: 1895) as
well as chamberpots.

If you are out our way, come by and see the new tour.

John Andrews, Knoxville, Tennessee (120 miles from Asheville NC)
Ken Harrison - 31 Dec 2005 06:51 GMT
> Wife and I just went through the Biltmore mansion in Asheville, NC.  
> This is a massive demonstration of wealth.  The thing that struck me was
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> on display.  Really good quarters with nice furnishings including
> bathrooms (unusual for the day: 1895) as well as chamberpots.

I toured that mansion three years ago.  Very impressive.  While what you
say about the jobs created is true, I think you may confuse human
dignity with jobs and care.  A far better example of America's use of
the labor force would be the history of George Pullman, the Pullman
Company, the city of Pullman, and the famous strike against the company
(why on Earth would the employees strike, being so well taken care
of...that's a rhetorical question, incidentally).

History has many faces for each issue, not all of them pleasant.

KH
Unk - 30 Dec 2005 16:57 GMT
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:08:39 GMT, Ken Harrison
[snip]
>> You seem to want a change of our Capitalist system.  To what system
>> would you change?
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>> Dean
>Ken

Under capitalism no one "takes" from anyone.  People "earn".  Some
more than others.  How can a rich person take from a poor person? They
have nothing to take.  The only thing I could learn from a poor person
is how to find the welfare office. I really don't need that
information.

I had a disagreement with a lady on another RV forum and she was
adament that when a Walmart store opened, all the jobs were taken from
'other people'.  One job gained, one job lost.  She could not get away
from the zero sum gain concept so prevalent among liberals.
GeoffP - 30 Dec 2005 20:43 GMT
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:08:39 GMT, Ken Harrison
> [snip]
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> 'other people'.  One job gained, one job lost.  She could not get away
> from the zero sum gain concept so prevalent among liberals.

One of the  things a rich person can take from a poor person is employing
them at sub standard wages and therefore making themselves richer. I think
you are very lucky not needing to know where the welfare office is. You do
realise that if there were no people out of work, the wage rate would be
substantially higher? Ergo, fewer profits for the wealthy. I assume you have
read that when the unemployment level falls too low that the economists
start to worry?
Geoff.
miles - 31 Dec 2005 02:21 GMT
> One of the  things a rich person can take from a poor person is employing
> them at sub standard wages and therefore making themselves richer. I think
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> read that when the unemployment level falls too low that the economists
> start to worry?

Raising the wages of low end unskilled jobs above that of market value
won't help the poor.  What effect do you think would occur if the
minimum wage were say $20/hour?  Think the poor would be better off?
GeoffP - 31 Dec 2005 04:43 GMT
>> One of the  things a rich person can take from a poor person is employing
>> them at sub standard wages and therefore making themselves richer. I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> won't help the poor.  What effect do you think would occur if the minimum
> wage were say $20/hour?  Think the poor would be better off?
I am not talking of $20 an hour. What is the minimum wage where you live?
Could you live on it? Who determines what is market value? How many poor
people do not have jobs? people like you make me sick.
Geoff.
Will Sill - 31 Dec 2005 13:33 GMT
I see where miles <nope@nopers.com> contributed in response to an
unusually stupid remark by "GeoffP" wrote:

>Raising the wages of low end unskilled jobs above that of market value
>won't help the poor.  What effect do you think would occur if the
>minimum wage were say $20/hour?  Think the poor would be better off?

The minimum wage has exactly one clear effect:  it makes those whose
work is worth less unemployable.   The poor would be "better off" with
higher minums only as long as taxpayers continue to support the
growing number of unemployables - a situation likely to continue as
long as we gallop towards socialism.

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
miles - 31 Dec 2005 13:57 GMT
> The minimum wage has exactly one clear effect:  it makes those whose
> work is worth less unemployable.   The poor would be "better off" with
> higher minums only as long as taxpayers continue to support the
> growing number of unemployables - a situation likely to continue as
> long as we gallop towards socialism.

The other problem is the fact that as you artificially raise salaries
above market value the cost of goods will rise to match.  The net effect
is the buying power is unchanged.
Ken Harrison - 01 Jan 2006 07:58 GMT
>> The minimum wage has exactly one clear effect:  it makes those
>> whose work is worth less unemployable.   The poor would be "better
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>  above market value the cost of goods will rise to match.  The net
> effect is the buying power is unchanged.

And I suppose you guys also oppose "illegal immigrants?"  In case you
are unaware, those are the the folks who will work at hard jobs that
Americans will not do, for wages lower than Americans expect for the
work they ALSO will not do.  Thus, Americans themselves create the
demand for the existence of poor people as laborers to do work that they
themselves will not do, for the wages that can employers can afford to
pay as a result of that Americans will pay for the products.  Americans
will not, of course, pay the true cost of producing the materials (be
they food or electronics, etc.) to which they believe they are entitled
by birthright.

As much as some people here would like to believe, this is NOT a black
and white world.

Ken H
JerryD(upstateNY) - 01 Jan 2006 10:36 GMT
Ken H wrote........
>>And I suppose you guys also oppose "illegal immigrants?"  In case you are
>>unaware, those are the folks who will work at hard jobs that Americans
>>will not do, for wages lower than Americans expect for the  work they ALSO
>>will not do.<<

This may be correct..............as far as you go, but that doesn't tell the
story.
These illegal immigrants put a stress on our hospitals and welfare systems
which costs much more than any savings from their cheap labor.
Many hospitals have closed because of these illegal immigrants.
They have all closed for the same reason.........too many non-paying
patients. (read illegal immigrants)

Signature

JerryD(upstateNY)

miles - 01 Jan 2006 15:04 GMT
> This may be correct..............as far as you go, but that doesn't tell the
> story.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> They have all closed for the same reason.........too many non-paying
> patients. (read illegal immigrants)

Here in AZ its very common for a illegal immigrant pregnant woman to
wait out in the parking lot of a Hospital until she goes into labor.
Then walks into the emergency room and delivers.  The baby is a US
citizen and thus instantly collects welfare.

I don't care whats said about so called welfare reform.  I know too many
illegals collecting food stamps, healthcare etc.  They know the system
and how to work it.
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 02:12 GMT
> illegals collecting food stamps, healthcare etc.
> They know the system and how to work it.

Illegal immigration may well be the most important issue in '08.  If it is, it
will prove particularly troublesome to the party that has MANY members that
support giving illegals driver's licenses, health care and public education.

JR
Ken Harrison - 02 Jan 2006 08:15 GMT
>> This may be correct..............as far as you go, but that doesn't
>> tell the story.
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Then walks into the emergency room and delivers.  The baby is a US
> citizen and thus instantly collects welfare.
So what is the attraction of being a citizen of the US?  You don't
suppose that it has to do with the greater opportunities afforded by
citizenship in this country rather than in some other country?  You
ought to be proud that we are in a country that can offer these
blessings.  Perhaps you do not like the Spanish language, or are
unwilling to learn some of it.

> I don't care whats said about so called welfare reform.  I know too many
> illegals collecting food stamps, healthcare etc.  They know the system
> and how to work it.
If you know "too many illegals collecting food stamps, health care,
etc." then it is your responsibility as a citizen of the US to report
these offenders to your local INS office.  Failing that, all you are
doing is being xenophobic about people whom you do not happen to like.

Ken H
miles - 02 Jan 2006 08:35 GMT
> So what is the attraction of being a citizen of the US?  You don't
> suppose that it has to do with the greater opportunities afforded by
> citizenship in this country rather than in some other country?  You
> ought to be proud that we are in a country that can offer these
> blessings.  Perhaps you do not like the Spanish language, or are
> unwilling to learn some of it.

Huh?  So we should not bother with immigration laws then?  No reason for
them huh?

> If you know "too many illegals collecting food stamps, health care,
> etc." then it is your responsibility as a citizen of the US to report
> these offenders to your local INS office.  Failing that, all you are
> doing is being xenophobic about people whom you do not happen to like.

Oh too funny.  The Government knows it.  They do nothing about it.
There are 100's of illegals on the street corners of many southwest
border states.  They're there looking for day labor jobs.  People who
need landscaping etc drive by, load up a truck full of them and take
them to the jobsite.  Been like that for years.  Gov. doesn't give a
rats a.s because of the political heat they get whenever they go after
illegals.  People like you cry foul, racism, low paying jobs Americans
won't work for anyways and on and on.
Ken Harrison - 02 Jan 2006 08:07 GMT
> Ken H wrote........
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> They have all closed for the same reason.........too many non-paying
> patients. (read illegal immigrants)

"Illegal immigrants" are too frightened to use the (poor) systems we
have in place for medical, welfare, and other services.  They avoid
these services precisely because they are "illegal."  They do so because
to be caught using these services would lead to their deportation.

Their employers, when such employers do so, pay payroll taxes that
support such services.  Unfortunately, most employers do not pay these
taxes, so  any cost of services to these "illegals" is borne by the
Federal government, which of course derives its revenues from the
payments of citizens who do, in fact, accurately report their financial
activities.  Hence, we (as American taxpayers) are subsidizing
businesses and corporations who have chosen not to pay the true cost of
the "illegal immigrants" they are hiring to do the work that US citizens
will not do.

This is NOT a black and white world!

Ken H
miles - 02 Jan 2006 08:31 GMT
> "Illegal immigrants" are too frightened to use the (poor) systems we
> have in place for medical, welfare, and other services.  They avoid
> these services precisely because they are "illegal."  They do so because
> to be caught using these services would lead to their deportation.

You have no idea do you?  They are not scared of being caught.  Here in
Phoenix they stand right out on the street corner known by employers to
be picked up for daily labor.  Private business even built several day
labor centers which are essentially covered shade areas for illegals to
wait for day jobs from those that stop by in need.  They routinly apply
and get social benifits.  They know the system and how to work it.
lanman - 07 Jan 2006 03:13 GMT
>> Ken H wrote........
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>these services precisely because they are "illegal."  They do so because
>to be caught using these services would lead to their deportation.

That would be incorrect. Illegals know the system better than a
majority of Americans. Hospitals cannot ask status, and must treat all
who come to the emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay. Many
cities have a sanctuary policy and police are instructed to *not*
pursue illegals, and if the happen upon one by accident, it's a catch
and release policy. This is most unfair to legal immigrants and
American taxpayers.

>Their employers, when such employers do so, pay payroll taxes that
>support such services.  Unfortunately, most employers do not pay these
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>This is NOT a black and white world!

Ya think?
Unk - 01 Jan 2006 18:29 GMT
>And I suppose you guys also oppose "illegal immigrants?"  In case you
>are unaware, those are the the folks who will work at hard jobs that
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>Ken H

Ken, It is called MARKET FORCES.  If the illegals were not here,
employers would be forced to raise wages to attract LEGAL workers who
would do the job.  They don't now because thay can sit on their fat
a.ses and make more on welfare than by working.  

My daughter and SIL are in WHY, Arizona as I type visiting his
parents.  His dad works for Border Patrol and they have a constant
worry, not about the good illegals but the 10% or so bad ones.

Sure it would raise some prices but I believe the trade is worth
while.  At least the money paid would stay in this country.

unk in Mesa, AZ
Ken Harrison - 02 Jan 2006 08:26 GMT
>>And I suppose you guys also oppose "illegal immigrants?"  In case you
>>are unaware, those are the the folks who will work at hard jobs that
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> would do the job.  They don't now because thay can sit on their fat
> a.ses and make more on welfare than by working.
My point exactly.  American will not do these jobs, yet they insist that
these jobs be done, and at a cost that is lower than the cost of the job
performed by US citizens.  We can't have it both ways.  Either pay the
cost of the job as performed by US citizens, or pay the cost of the job
as performed by those who are "illegal" under the terms of our present
understanding, and in the interim, allow these people who perform these
services to achieve the simple thing they have been wanting; legality.

> My daughter and SIL are in WHY, Arizona as I type visiting his
> parents.  His dad works for Border Patrol and they have a constant
> worry, not about the good illegals but the 10% or so bad ones.
>
> Sure it would raise some prices but I believe the trade is worth
> while.  At least the money paid would stay in this country.
Family is much more important in the Spanish-speaking countries than in
the English-speaking ones.  You cannot deride the Mexicans for coming
here to do work that Americans will not do, and then berate them for
sending their dollars to Mexico.  Do you want to reinstate the slave
system?  We are the only salvation for many Mexican families.  What is
wrong with that?

> unk in Mesa, AZ
Ken in CA
miles - 02 Jan 2006 08:41 GMT
> Family is much more important in the Spanish-speaking countries than in
> the English-speaking ones.  You cannot deride the Mexicans for coming
> here to do work that Americans will not do, and then berate them for
> sending their dollars to Mexico.  Do you want to reinstate the slave
> system?  We are the only salvation for many Mexican families.  What is
> wrong with that?

Because of the high cost to Americans.  True Americans won't work for
$3/hour and zero benifits.  Without illegal workers, the wages would go
up to meet the supply of Americans.  Add to that the $'s from wages
would stay in the USA.  Your preferred way is a huge cost to Americans
in the long run.
lanman - 07 Jan 2006 03:32 GMT
>>>And I suppose you guys also oppose "illegal immigrants?"  In case you
>>>are unaware, those are the the folks who will work at hard jobs that
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>these jobs be done, and at a cost that is lower than the cost of the job
>performed by US citizens.  

All jobs will be filled when the wages and labor reach equilibrium.
Americans may not want jobs that pay .25cents a bushel and require 14
hour days, but would probably do them at reasonable pay with some
benefits. Employers should not be allowed to exploit illegals to drive
down wages with near slave labor.

Further, Americans don't need cheap lettuce and then not be able to
purchase health care because the system is saturated with illegals
which drives premiums to levels out of reach for individuals, or have
their children denied a decent education because the classrooms are
flooded with illegals. This is false economy, and bad for everyone.
The borders should be sealed immediately for reasons of national
security and then a guest worker program can be created.
GeoffP - 02 Jan 2006 00:31 GMT
>I see where miles <nope@nopers.com> contributed in response to an
> unusually stupid remark by "GeoffP" wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Will Sill
> The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
Will, You said that I made an unusually stupid remark. Really? I thought
that you considered all my remarks stupid. If you are agreeing with some
then I must be getting soft LOL. I consider it to be an honour and a
privilege to be on your "PLONK" list. You are the worst kind of person on my
list...Someone who professes to be religious, but cares little for the more
unfortunate in our midst. Do you pray on Sunday for the poor people to die
so that your taxes will go down?
Geoff.
lanman - 31 Dec 2005 00:46 GMT
>On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:08:39 GMT, Ken Harrison
>[snip]
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>Under capitalism no one "takes" from anyone.  People "earn".  Some
>more than others.  How can a rich person take from a poor person?

Surely you jest. We do not have pure capitalism in the US, and I think
we are better for it. We embrace many of the concepts of capitalism,
such as private ownership of property and real estate, but we also
have many government safety nets in the form of welfare and taxation
that help keep a minimum living standard for the majority of the poor.
Pure capitalism with the rich and the educated exploiting the ignorant
and the poor is an ugly sight indeed.

They
>have nothing to take.  The only thing I could learn from a poor person
>is how to find the welfare office. I really don't need that
>information.

What an arrogant piece of sh.t you are. You're disgusting.
Jim Redelfs - 30 Dec 2005 22:33 GMT
...and the off-topic was going SO well...   <sigh>

>> The only thing I could learn from a poor person
>> is how to find the welfare office. I really don't
>> need that information.

> What an arrogant piece of sh.t you are. You're disgusting.

ARGH!!  [ROFLMAO]   :)

You need only scratch the surface of the typical, touchy-feeling, bleeding
heart liberal and they come out "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.

You poor sots are so devoid of an original idea it's pathetic.

I can't WAIT until '06 and '08!

            :)
JR
lanman - 31 Dec 2005 03:42 GMT
>...and the off-topic was going SO well...   <sigh>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>You need only scratch the surface of the typical, touchy-feeling, bleeding
>heart liberal and they come out "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.

Dude, I'm an Uncle Milty free market capitalist and as the song goes -
"life's been good to me so far". But I know we don't need to return to
the days of the robber barons who tipped the playing field to their
advantage through corrupt corporate bookkeeping, nefarious stock
market schemes, bribed politicians, and low wages to employees
enabling them to create their vast empires.

Regrettably, we are getting uncomfortably close to that era which was
a scourge on our nation. Estimates vary, but some economists belive
that the top 10% of the country's rich now control up to 80% of the
wealth. I have to wonder, what distribution ratio must we reach, and
how low does the middle class have to sink before the average wage
earner starts to think that Uncle Karl has a message that's starting
to resonate.
Jim Redelfs - 31 Dec 2005 03:22 GMT
>> You need only scratch the surface of the typical,
>> touchy-feeling, bleeding heart liberal and they come out
>> "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.

> Dude, I'm an Uncle Milty free market capitalist

You could sure fool me.  Read on, McDuff...

> I have to wonder, what distribution ratio must we reach, and
> how low does the middle class have to sink before the average wage
> earner starts to think that Uncle Karl has a message that's starting
> to resonate.

You tell me, comrade.

My maternal grandfather retired as Secretary of the Omaha branch of the
Federal Land Bank.  My mother was a five-year, Phi Beta Kappa Registered
Nurse.  I was the only one of five that was NOT born in Omaha.  I was born in
Rochester while dear, old Dad was doing his Anesthesiology residency at Mayo.  
My daughter just got her M.D. from the same school.

I never attended a DAY of college and, after over 32-years with the phone
company, I am doing well and quite optimistic - not to mention a Conservative
Republican - to the CWA's chagrin.  (I'm a >32-yr member.)

We've TRIED all of "Uncle Karl" (Marx)'s ideas, several times - and they are
ALL failures.  They've taken ENOUGH of my money and given TOO much of it to
UNdeserving ingrates.  No more.  Let them eat cake.

When we return to calling being "on the dole" to what it is: Welfare, instead
of "entitlement", then I might *START* to look at it differently.  Might.  
Don't hold your breath.

I'd rather live in a society dominated by TEN rich "robber barons" than ten
THOUSAND "poor" people - all angry because they were "denied" their due.

JR - United Way "Continuous" and "Fair Share" giver.  Wotta guy.
lanman - 31 Dec 2005 17:00 GMT
>>> You need only scratch the surface of the typical,
>>> touchy-feeling, bleeding heart liberal and they come out
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Rochester while dear, old Dad was doing his Anesthesiology residency at Mayo.  
>My daughter just got her M.D. from the same school.

Ah, a priviledged upbringing. That's a fairly common reason many of
the well-to-do have such contempt for the less fortunate.

>I never attended a DAY of college and, after over 32-years with the phone
>company, I am doing well and quite optimistic - not to mention a Conservative
>Republican - to the CWA's chagrin.  (I'm a >32-yr member.)

Ah, so you worked at a unionized monopoly turned oligopoly and still
have your job after 32 years. Nothing like security in one's position
and an artificially high pay scale to forment scorn for those whose
job was outsourced or taken by exploited illegal immigrants who'll
essentially work for food.

>We've TRIED all of "Uncle Karl" (Marx)'s ideas, several times - and they are
>ALL failures.  They've taken ENOUGH of my money and given TOO much of it to
>UNdeserving ingrates.  No more.  Let them eat cake.

As I said, I believe in free market capitalism. BUT, I also have
compassion for those who are disadvantaged - particularly the young,
the elderly, and those who are on hard times through no fault of their
own. You, on the other hand, would seem to be a bitter, miserable
individual - despite your perceived success. I trust you don't equate
success in life by the size of your portfolio.

>When we return to calling being "on the dole" to what it is: Welfare, instead
>of "entitlement", then I might *START* to look at it differently.  Might.  
>Don't hold your breath.

Welfare was pretty much reformed during the Clinton years - a Democrat
no less. Who would have thought.

>I'd rather live in a society dominated by TEN rich "robber barons" than ten
>THOUSAND "poor" people - all angry because they were "denied" their due.

I assume you prefer this because you would be one of the ten robber
barons, eh? The biggest problem poor people have today is an utterly
corrupt federal government which passes laws allowing greedy
individuals and corporations to legally steal from the poor. Credit
card companies with usary rates, city governments which abuse eminent
domain to steal desirable land for developers building marinas for the
rich, tax loopholes allowing corporations and the rich to escape
paying taxes, etc.  
miles - 31 Dec 2005 14:01 GMT
> Welfare was pretty much reformed during the Clinton years - a Democrat
> no less. Who would have thought.

Reformed??  HA!  We still have redistribution of wealth and a system
that oppresses the poor and keeps them there, on the dole.  We need a
system that helps people learn how to get off the dole, not teach them
how to be dependent on welfare.
Jim Redelfs - 01 Jan 2006 04:16 GMT
>> My maternal grandfather retired as Secretary of the Omaha branch of the
>> Federal Land Bank.  My mother was a five-year, Phi Beta Kappa Registered
>> Nurse.  I was the only one of five that was NOT born in Omaha.  I was born
>> in Rochester while dear, old Dad was doing his Anesthesiology residency at
>> Mayo.  My daughter just got her M.D. from the same school.

> Ah, a priviledged upbringing.

Hehehehe!  You are a particularly clueless Liberal.   :)

Five children raised by a SINGLE mother in the 50s hardly qualifies as a
priviledged(sic) upbringing.

> That's a fairly common reason many of
> the well-to-do have such contempt for the less fortunate.

Perhaps you could explain how a privileged upbringing generates contempt for
ANYTHING, much less the <sob> less fortunate.

> Ah, so you worked at a unionized monopoly turned oligopoly and still
> have your job after 32 years. Nothing like security in one's position
> and an artificially high pay scale to forment scorn for those whose
> job was outsourced or taken by exploited illegal immigrants who'll
> essentially work for food.

Perhaps you could explain how security in one's position and an artificially
high pay scale forments(sic) scorn for ANYTHING, much less those whose job was
outsourced or taken by exploited illegal immigrants.

C'mon!  I was raised by a single mom and am a union man.  I should be a
DARLING of The Left.  But, to their chagrin, I was raised to work hard, do a
good job and EARN a living.  That I have a brain and free will probably
contributed to my derailment somewhere along the line.

> As I said, I believe in free market capitalism.

Then SHOW it, VOTE it and ACT like it.

> I also have compassion for those who are disadvantaged

But, of course, Dahlink!  You measure compassion by the number of those that
avail themselves of governmental wealth redistribution.  You are an elitist
and, quite likely, a snob.

A genuinely compassionate person does not wear it on their sleeve and rates
their compassion by the number of FORMER needy persons.

> - particularly the young, the elderly, and those who are on
> hard times through no fault of their own.

Kwit it!  The cliche meter is pegging!  It's a fair bet you're for clean air
and water, too.  Wotta guy!  Hehehehe!   :)

> You, on the other hand, would seem to be a bitter, miserable individual

No doubt you would think that, given your frustrated outlook on life.

> despite your perceived success.

Perceived?  I thank GOD every day for my <ahem> PERCEIVED success:  The bills
are paid and the ENTIRE (extended) family is in good health.  I shudder to
consider your definition of success.  But, you are compassionate, so that's
all that matters.

> I trust you don't equate success in life by the size of your portfolio.

You trust correctly.

> Welfare was pretty much reformed during the Clinton years - a Democrat
> no less. Who would have thought.

On this we agree.  Of course, it was all accomplished by a
Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives and VERY reluctantly
signed by AnklePants.

>> I'd rather live in a society dominated by TEN rich
>> "robber barons" than ten THOUSAND "poor" people - all angry
>> because they were "denied" their due.

> I assume you prefer this because you would be
> one of the ten robber barons, eh?

I should be so lucky.  I would prefer it because I have experience living
under the "rule" of angry, rich Liberals.  Life under angry, POOR Liberals is
unthinkable.

> The biggest problem poor people have today is an utterly
> corrupt federal government

I disagree.   The biggest problem poor people have today is a still-
too-liberal federal government giving them too much (of my) money for not
enough in return.

> which passes laws allowing greedy
> individuals and corporations to legally steal from the poor.

Take it to the ballot box, Robin Hood.  Oh, wait!  You haven't had much
success with that recently.  Again, thank God.

> Credit card companies with usary rates

Wait a minute!  That's regulated by YOUR god:  The federal government.  I
know, I know...  If only you had your power back.

> city governments which abuse eminent domain to steal desirable land for
> developers building marinas for the rich

Don't go there, my friend.  It was your LEFTIST buddies on the U.S. Supreme
Court that upheld THAT travesty.

> tax loopholes allowing corporations and the
> rich to escape paying taxes, etc.

I believe in percentages and statistics.  I'm sure you don't because, if you
did, your gloomy outlook would become even worse.  As a percentage of their
income, the [drumroll] RICH (you forgot "wealthy") and EEEEEVIL corporations
pay more taxes than do I or most others not so financially successful.

Nice try but, with (no) apologies to your disgraced, disbarred and impeached
poster boy, NO CIGAR!

HA!
           :)
JR
Hunter - 01 Jan 2006 04:35 GMT
>Nice try but, with (no) apologies to your disgraced, disbarred and impeached
>poster boy, NO CIGAR!
>
>HA!
>            :)
>JR

Do you realize how much more obnoxious your posts are when you put
that phony smile at the end?

Hunter
--

http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
Jim Redelfs - 01 Jan 2006 13:14 GMT
> Do you realize how much more obnoxious your posts are when you put
> that phony smile at the end?

It's not phony.

I manually place the smiley emoticon there when, at the conclusion of my post,
I am SMILING.  That doing so annoys those that disagree with what I've written
is an added benefit.

        :)
JR
Will Sill - 01 Jan 2006 13:40 GMT
I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> responded to our
resident non-thinking liberal blond, who snarled:

>> Do you realize how much more obnoxious your posts are when you put
>> that phony smile at the end?

JR:
>It's not phony.
>
>I manually place the smiley emoticon there when, at the conclusion of my post,
>I am SMILING.  That doing so annoys those that disagree with what I've written
>is an added benefit.

Jim, you need to understand that yer smiley is not what gets her
undies in a bunch.  It's your very accurate description of her:

:You need only scratch the surface of the typical, touchy-feeling, bleeding
:heart liberal and they come out "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.
:
:You poor sots are so devoid of an original idea it's pathetic.
:
:I can't WAIT until '06 and '08!

The trouble is that a huge number of non-thinking voters don't bother
to get factual information.  Instead, they passively soak up the
unending propaganda pap spewed by ABC/CBS/NBC and especially PBS.
There is a real possibility that a carefully orchestrated dishonest
media blitz could actually put Hillary in the White House in '08.  

Hard as it is to believe in view of her liberal leanaings and terrible
reading comprehension skills, Hunter is actually smarter than many
voters.

8-(

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
Fred - 01 Jan 2006 16:16 GMT
>I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> responded to our
> resident non-thinking liberal blond, who snarled:
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Will Sill
> The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill

You have to admire this guy, ardent subscriber of the Daily Worker preaching
about facts to anybody
Hunter - 01 Jan 2006 17:35 GMT
>You have to admire this guy, ardent subscriber of the Daily Worker preaching
>about facts to anybody

I don't have to admire the guy at all.....

Hunter
--

http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:25 GMT
>> You have to admire this guy

> I don't have to admire the guy at all.....

That's it?

You're a class act, lady.  (no joke)

JR
GBinNC - 01 Jan 2006 16:58 GMT
>The trouble is that a huge number of non-thinking voters don't bother
>to get factual information.  Instead, they passively soak up the
>unending propaganda pap spewed by ABC/CBS/NBC and especially PBS.

ROFL.

You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
to watch Fox News.

GB in NC
miles - 01 Jan 2006 18:08 GMT
> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
> to watch Fox News.

It's kinda funny how so many dems/liberals whine about Fox news.  They
sure don't complain about the bias on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS not to
mention the majority of major newspapers in this country.
GBinNC - 01 Jan 2006 19:42 GMT
>> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
>> to watch Fox News.

>It's kinda funny how so many dems/liberals whine about Fox news.  They
>sure don't complain about the bias on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS not to
>mention the majority of major newspapers in this country.

"Dems/liberals"? I'm to the left on some issues and to the right on
others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
the middle.

Regardless, I wasn't "whining" about Fox news. I was poking fun at the
concept that they are supposedly the source for "fair and balanced"
news.

Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
other way.

GB in NC
D.J. Osborn - 01 Jan 2006 22:38 GMT
>>> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
>>> to watch Fox News.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
> the middle.

The opinions you've expressed here are overwhelmingly liberal, based upon
long-term observation--without any attempt to "keep score." While it's true
that you have expressed a few conservative opinions, those have consistently
been of an economic nature. The social opinions you've are almost
exclusively liberal.

> Regardless, I wasn't "whining" about Fox news. I was poking fun at the
> concept that they are supposedly the source for "fair and balanced"
> news.

Despite your latest attempt at denial, you *were* clearly "whining." Fox
News is consistently far more fair and balanced than are the other networks.
While Fox News certainly gives more air time to conservative viewpoints than
do the others, they still provide a significant amount of air time for
liberal viewpoints.

> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
> other way.

As is true of most general statements, that's only accurate for *some*
people. Intelligent people don't claim any such thing.

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:53 GMT
>> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
>> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
>> other way.

> As is true of most general statements, that's only accurate for *some*
> people. Intelligent people don't claim any such thing.

Oops!
                 :(
JR
GBinNC - 02 Jan 2006 02:14 GMT
>>> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
>>> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
>>> other way.

>> As is true of most general statements, that's only accurate for *some*
>> people. Intelligent people don't claim any such thing.

>Oops!

ROFL.

GB in NC
D.J. Osborn - 02 Jan 2006 02:48 GMT
>>>> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
>>>> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> ROFL.

Feel free to "ROFL" all you like. That should be easy, since you do it here
quite frequently.

My statement--unlike general statements (such as yours) that lump all people
together--was accurate. My statement specifically concerned intelligent
people, and is therefore accurate. If you can't tell the difference between
your general statement and mine specific statement, then "ROFL" may be one
of the most intelligent actions of which you are capable.

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

miles - 01 Jan 2006 23:49 GMT
> "Dems/liberals"? I'm to the left on some issues and to the right on
> others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
> the middle.

From my experience it seems the majority of dems/liberals I know do
indeed view themselves as a middle of the road moderate.  Maybe they are
not proud to be a liberal.  Your social views here are almost entirely
liberal in nature.

> Regardless, I wasn't "whining" about Fox news. I was poking fun at the
> concept that they are supposedly the source for "fair and balanced"
> news.

I don't believe any media is without some bias.  With that said I see
more liberal viewpoints on Fox than I see conservative viewpoints on
CNN, CBS, ABC or NBC.

> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
> other way.

Thats pretty much the way liberals view Fox.   To me I don't really
insist any are better than the others.  They all are biased in some way
but liberals rarely say anything about the bias found in any news media
 except Fox.  Why?
D.J. Osborn - 01 Jan 2006 23:54 GMT
>> "Dems/liberals"? I'm to the left on some issues and to the right on
>> others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> proud to be a liberal.  Your social views here are almost entirely liberal
> in nature.

Most conservatives are proud to be conservatives and prefer to be called
"conservatives." A few liberals are proud of being liberals, but many--and
perhaps most--appear to be ashamed of it and prefer to be called
"moderates."

>> Regardless, I wasn't "whining" about Fox news. I was poking fun at the
>> concept that they are supposedly the source for "fair and balanced"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> liberal viewpoints on Fox than I see conservative viewpoints on CNN, CBS,
> ABC or NBC.

That's been my experience, as well.

>> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
>> they more or less agree with -- and insist that the rest are biased the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> liberals rarely say anything about the bias found in any news media except
> Fox.  Why?

That's an excellent question. I hope we receive a direct answer--instead of
more denials.

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:58 GMT
> A few liberals are proud of being liberals, but many--and
> perhaps most--appear to be ashamed of it and prefer to be called
> "moderates."

...or <gag> Progressives.

>> They all are biased in some way but liberals rarely say anything
>> about the bias found in any news media except Fox.  Why?

> That's an excellent question. I hope we receive a direct answer-
> instead of more denials.

I won't hold my breath.

          :)
JR
Ken Harrison - 02 Jan 2006 08:36 GMT
>> "Dems/liberals"? I'm to the left on some issues and to the right on
>> others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> not proud to be a liberal.  Your social views here are almost entirely
> liberal in nature.

You know, it is an interesting thing.  I consider myself a conservative.
 If an amendment to the Constitution states that "no law shall be made
respecting the freedom of speech or the free exercise thereof," then I
take that to mean that "no law shall be made respecting the freedom of
speech or the free exercise thereof."  Damn!  I thought that, perhaps, I
could wrap my unconstitutional actions in the cloak of terrorism and,
hence, allow for the subjugation of constitutional protections.  How
wrong was I?

Ken H
miles - 02 Jan 2006 08:57 GMT
>>> "Dems/liberals"? I'm to the left on some issues and to the right on
>>> others. I don't keep score, but I'm sure I average out somewhere near
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> hence, allow for the subjugation of constitutional protections.  How
> wrong was I?

Whoa!!  What does all this rhetoric have to do with your social views
being liberal?
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:50 GMT
> Funny how people seem to favor the news sources that present viewpoints
> they more or less agree with

I agree and I'm "guilty" of it.

> -- and insist that the rest are biased the other way.

Aren't they?

For YEARS we had Walter Cronkite telling us "...and that's the way it is", and
we bought it - hook, line and sinker.

I honestly don't recall the "mainstream press" being nearly as biased in their
political coverage then as they are now.  Perhaps it's their reaction to their
loss of the monopoly they had while telling us how things were - and are.  
Fortunately, fewer and fewer people are blindly buying it - literally as well
as conceptually.

For as long as I can remember, a large portion of our society believed (and
still believes, with a particular exception) that "BIG is bad".  They broke-up
the Bell System, went after Microsoft and now have Wal-Mart in their sights.  
But, when it comes to "Big Media" - or big government for that matter - BIG is
OK as long as it conforms to and, better yet, promotes their agenda.

JR
lanman - 01 Jan 2006 23:44 GMT
>> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
>> to watch Fox News.
>
>It's kinda funny how so many dems/liberals whine about Fox news.  They
>sure don't complain about the bias on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS not to
>mention the majority of major newspapers in this country.

Indeed, someone recently quipped that the primary reason a majority of
Iraqis are optimistic about their future is because they don't have
the NY Times available to tell them how badly things are going.
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:34 GMT
> It's kinda funny how so many dems/liberals whine about Fox news.  They
> sure don't complain about the bias on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS not to
> mention the majority of major newspapers in this country.

It's kinda SCARY how so many dems/liberals can't SEE the bias on the other
networks.

           :\
JR
Ken Harrison - 02 Jan 2006 08:16 GMT
>> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth we need
>> to watch Fox News.
>
> It's kinda funny how so many dems/liberals whine about Fox news.  They
> sure don't complain about the bias on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS not to
> mention the majority of major newspapers in this country.

I would be pleased to know of examples of bias on the networks you mention.

KH
miles - 02 Jan 2006 08:36 GMT
>> I would be pleased to know of examples of bias on the networks you mention.

Give an example of Fox bias.  I don't know of any non-biased news media
forums.
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:32 GMT
> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth
> we need to watch Fox News.

Truth?  That is surely in the opinion of the beholder.

It seems to me, however, that Fox News gives more air time to opposing
viewpoints than do the other networks.  You ought to try it for a while.  At
least, with Fox, I don't have to prop-up the left side of my TV to make things
appear centered.

         :)
JR
GBinNC - 02 Jan 2006 02:23 GMT
>> You forgot to tell us that to get the "fair and balanced" truth
>> we need to watch Fox News.

>Truth?  That is surely in the opinion of the beholder.

That was exactly my point in my earlier post.

>It seems to me, however, that Fox News gives more air time to opposing
>viewpoints than do the other networks.  You ought to try it for a while.  At
>least, with Fox, I don't have to prop-up the left side of my TV to make things
>appear centered.

Actually, I watch almost no TV news -- especially political commentary.

I would hardly know one network from another. I usually turn on the TV
(usually CNN Headline News) if there's some breaking news so I can find
out what's happening, and that's about it. Other than that, TiVo records
everything we want to watch -- and it's *not* news.

I get most of my national and international news from other factions of
the "liberal media" <g>. For example, the Charlotte Observer, which
regularly prints letters to the editor from both sides claiming bias
toward the other. So they must be fairly balanced, on average...

GB in NC
Jim Redelfs - 02 Jan 2006 01:00 GMT
Without reading the flurry of replies that follow, I'll reply now...

> Jim, you need to understand that yer smiley is not what gets her
> undies in a bunch.  It's your very accurate description of her:

>> You need only scratch the surface of the typical,
>> touchy-feeling, bleeding heart liberal and they come out
>> "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.

I must disagree with you on this, Will.  Perhaps I haven't been here as long
as some others (although it's been years) I can't recall a sophomoric name
called by her.

>> I can't WAIT until '06 and '08!

> The trouble is that a huge number of non-thinking voters don't bother
> to get factual information.  Instead, they passively soak up the
> unending propaganda pap spewed by ABC/CBS/NBC and especially PBS.

You mean CBS, NBS, ABS and, of course, reluctantly funded in part by you and
me, PBS.  (If PBS doesn't do it, it must be ESPECIALLY worthless.)  

> There is a real possibility that a carefully orchestrated dishonest
> media blitz could actually put Hillary in the White House in '08.

Which is why we must be vigilant.  In any case, I suspect (and HOPE) that her
feigned move to The Center<tm> will split the donkey vote and improve "our"
chances of Yet Another Victory.  Then, of course, there is the sad prospect of
a President McCain or [shudder] my own "RINO" Senator Chuck Hagel.

> Hunter is actually smarter than many voters.

Therein lies my puzzlement:  That otherwise intelligent and informed persons
are genuinely liberal.

          <sigh>
JR
Will Sill - 02 Jan 2006 13:14 GMT
I see where Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> contributed:

Will:
>> Jim, you need to understand that yer smiley is not what gets her
>> undies in a bunch.  It's your very accurate description of her:
>
>>> You need only scratch the surface of the typical,
>>> touchy-feeling, bleeding heart liberal and they come out
>>> "swinging" with sophomoric name-calling.

JR:
>I must disagree with you on this, Will.  Perhaps I haven't been here as long
>as some others (although it's been years) I can't recall a sophomoric name
>called by her.

Try google.  The "lady" in question goes well below "sophomoric" when
annoyed.  

But that aside, the record clearly shows her to be a "touchy-feeling,
bleeding heart liberal".  Though she has begun to keep her head down a
lot lately, I assure you it wasn't the smiley that aroused her hatred.

Will Sill
The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
Hunter - 02 Jan 2006 13:30 GMT
>Try google.  The "lady" in question goes well below "sophomoric" when
>annoyed.  >

>But that aside, the record clearly shows her to be a "touchy-feeling,
>bleeding heart liberal".  Though she has begun to keep her head down a
>lot lately, I assure you it wasn't the smiley that aroused her hatred.>

Hatred?  Will, you need to up your medication.

Hunter

--

http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
GBinNC - 02 Jan 2006 16:08 GMT
>The "lady" in question goes well below "sophomoric" when annoyed.  

Well, at least she does it only when she's annoyed. That's better than
your going "well below sophomoric" when somebody simply disagrees with
you.

With your gratuitous name-calling and insults, you're the poster child
for "sophomoric." And everybody here knows it.

In a popularity contest between you and Hunter, I'm confident she'd
leave you in the dust.

GB in NC
D.J. Osborn - 02 Jan 2006 17:08 GMT
>>The "lady" in question goes well below "sophomoric" when annoyed.
>
> Well, at least she does it only when she's annoyed. That's better than
> your going "well below sophomoric" when somebody simply disagrees with
> you.

Quite obviously, *he* is annoyed when someone disagree with him, and so he
also "does it only when [he's] annoyed."

> With your gratuitous name-calling and insults, you're the poster child
> for "sophomoric." And everybody here knows it.

You also engage in "gratuitous name-calling and insults, and so does that
also make *you* a "poster child for 'sophomoric'"?

> In a popularity contest between you and Hunter, I'm confident she'd
> leave you in the dust.

What does that have to do with anything? Since when is a popularity contest
anything more than simply a popularity contest? Do *you* depend upon
popularity to be your moral compass in life?

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Hunter - 02 Jan 2006 17:25 GMT
>What does that have to do with anything? Since when is a popularity contest
>anything more than simply a popularity contest?

David,

I'm curious, when did you appoint yourself GB's personal ankle biter?

Hunter
--

http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm

Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body,
but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!"
D.J. Osborn - 02 Jan 2006 17:59 GMT
>>What does that have to do with anything? Since when is a popularity
>>contest
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I'm curious, when did you appoint yourself GB's personal ankle biter?

First, you need to ask gbinnc@yahoooo.com when he appointed himself Mr.
Sill's "personal ankle biter." After you ask him that question--and he
answers it, I'll answer your question. If you choose not to ask him that
question, then we'll know that you apply a double standard to Newsgroup
participation.

Signature

D.J., N8DO; FMCA 147762
dj[underscore]osborn at yahoo dot com

Hunter - 02 Jan 2006 18:17 GMT
>First, you need to ask gbinnc@yahoooo.com when he appointed himself Mr.
>Sill's "personal ankle biter." After you ask him that question--and he
>answers it, I'll answer your question. If you choose not to ask him that
>question, then we'll know that you apply a double standard to Newsgroup
>participation.

Since I haven't actually noticed GB biting Will's ankles I think I'll
pass on asking him when.

I have however noticed you doing it to GB.

If in fact GB is, are you saying two wrongs make a right?

You would be doing what you allege GB is doing..... and saying is
wrong.

You seem to set different standards for your behavior than for other
people's behavior.

Hunter
--

http://me