On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>
>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>
>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>  Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>
> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>
> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
> bottom (41).
>
> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.

No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.

Those the simply print more money to pay for those that want to be
supported by the government naturally gain popularity.

>
> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>
> And personally, having voted through the 80's, RR is overrated IMO.
>

On 7/16/2021 10:03 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/16/2021 12:27 AM, Bill wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>
>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>
>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult
>>> life.   Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone
>>> nuts.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if
>> you have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat
>> the third).
>
> A quick way to improve things it to get rid on any politician that made
> the national news in the past six months.  That would include Chuck and
> Nancy, McConnell, Cruz, Graham, AOC and a few others.
>
> Note that I said "improve" rather than fix.  Not sure Congress is truly
> fixable.

Until our government leaders have to live by the standards that they
impose on their subjects nothing will get better.

On 7/16/2021 9:33 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Clare Snyder <clare@snyder.on.ca> writes:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 10:13:10 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:19 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>>> On 7/14/2021 1:33 PM, Markem618 wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:24:51 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have to look at what the ACA has done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More people with health care insurance, that is good.
>>>>>
>>>>> Good if you can get in to actually see a doctor. I have heard that many
>>>>> doctors simply do not accept insurance.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't heard that, nor have I ever experienced it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My doctor considered not taking me as a patient unless I paid cash. My
>>> father was already a patient so he made an exception.
>>>
>>> There are several groups of doctors that refuse insurance and offer you
>>> a more realistic cost but only accept cash/credit card. They team up
>>> with specific pharmacies and labs and some hospitals that work together.
>>> That has been going on since the mid 90's that I know of.
>>>
>>> Insurance introduces a middle man that is making a large sum of the
>>> money. Doctors, pay a lot for personnel to process insurance claims so
>>> that they actually get paid.
>>>
>>> So basically medical costs are expensive BECAUSE they have to make up
>>> for the discounts that they have to give to the insurance company.
>>> Typically the insurance company gets a discount from the cost that a
>>> medical provider charges. Because most people have insurance the
>>> medical provider has to increase what they charge to the uninsured to be
>>> able get what they need, to stay in business, from the insurance company.
>>>
>>> My insurance provider gives me a break down of all medical costs and
>>> drug costs. They show what they were billed and they show what they
>>> actually paid. Most often the medical provider gets about 30~40% of
>>> what they billed the insurance company for.
>>>
>>> The groups of doctors I mentioned above don't accept insurance because
>>> they charge their cash/credit card customers the amount that they would
>>> have been paid by the insurance company. And in turn they don't need
>>> staff to process insurance claims.
>>>
>>> Many years ago most people could afford medical costs because insurance
>>> companies were not involved. And eventually the company you worked for
>>> provided free medical insurance and that all went out the door.
>> Good reason to get the insurance companies out of the look with a
>> "single payer system"
>
> Indeed. And "Many years ago" there was no laproscopic surgery, there
> was no open heart surgery and vast numbers of diseases had no effective
> treatment. Modern imaging techniques did not exist (from CAT/PET/MRI
> scanning to ultransonic imaging).
>
> And many years ago, those who could not afford it (and they were legion),
> simply died.
>

Every one dies. And one day "our times" will look barbaric because we
all did not live to be 150 years old. Life simply is not seemingly fair
to every one.

On 7/16/2021 1:25 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:06:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>
>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>
>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I've
>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>> should be abolished.
>>>
>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>
>> No, there is not. I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>> Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>
> Yeah, and the party of AOC is perfectly sane. That tells us all we
> need to know about you!
>

Yes, it show you are dumb making such conclusions.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>
>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>
>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>> bottom (41).
>>
>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>
>No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.

The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
contest.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

On 7/16/2021 5:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>
>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>
>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>>> bottom (41).
>>>
>>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>>
>> No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.
>
> The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
> otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
> presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
> contest.
>
> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>

Historians typically lean to see things with a left sided point of view.
As does the media.

Trump was pretty popular with a border wall going up to regulate the
inflow of undocumented people. Lowest unemployment in modern history,
maybe ever. And then the dream come true for the Democrats, Covid.

The fact that Jimmy Carter is in the middle of the list is a certain
sign that the numbers are what some one wants them to look like. Worst
and most ineffective president ever.

These numbers come from biased stories. It will not be long before
modern day citizens will want their statues torn down. Lets burn and
destroy our history so we can repeat it again.

On 7/16/2021 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>
>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>
>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>  Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>
>>
>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>
> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>
> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
> (DDE and RR).

Well, consider that those that voted are all "academics", and that
universities seems to be hot-spots for democratic ideology.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 7/16/2021 5:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>> On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>>
>>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>>
>>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>>>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>>>> bottom (41).
>>>>
>>>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>>>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>>>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>>>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>>>
>>> No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.
>>
>> The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
>> otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
>> presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
>> contest.
>>
>> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>>
>
>Historians typically lean to see things with a left sided point of view.
> As does the media.

Have you ever really studied history? Or are you just parroting the
Republican party line?

Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion?

Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>On 7/16/2021 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>
>>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>>  Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>
>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>
>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>> (DDE and RR).
>
>Well, consider that those that voted are all "academics", and that
>universities seems to be hot-spots for democratic ideology.
>

Again with this nonsense. There's no evidence that historians
lean in any particular direction as a group, nor is there any
evidence that universities lean one way or the other as a whole.

On 7/17/2021 9:47 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 7/16/2021 5:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>> On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>>>
>>>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>>>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>>>>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>>>>> bottom (41).
>>>>>
>>>>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>>>>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>>>>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>>>>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.
>>>
>>> The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
>>> otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
>>> presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
>>> contest.
>>>
>>> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>>>
>>
>> Historians typically lean to see things with a left sided point of view.
>> As does the media.
>
> Have you ever really studied history? Or are you just parroting the
> Republican party line?
>
> Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion?
>

For the era's that I am referencing above, I not only studied but lived
and experienced that history.

Just take the Mexico to Texas illegal border crossings. That was under
much better control under Trump.

Now that Biden has resumed importing future voters the Illegal border
crossings have hit hundreds of thousands per MONTH.

That is enough people to populate a small city every month. Extend that
out a year and that populates a city that probably will fall in the
largest 10 cities in the US. Go 3 years and you have filled a city with
only New York City being larger. And all of these figures are actually
coming from the biased news coverage at the borders.

No one believes this to be untrue and no one believes that the lowest
unemployment in their life times, during Trump before Covid, was untrue.

On 7/16/2021 8:55 PM, Bill wrote:
> On 7/16/2021 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>
>>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult
>>>> life.
>>>>    Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the
>>> third).
>>
>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>
>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>> (DDE and RR).
>
> Well, consider that those that voted are all "academics", and that
> universities seems to be hot-spots for democratic ideology.
>

+50,000

On 7/17/2021 9:49 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>> On 7/16/2021 10:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats.  Then, after seeing how
>>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>>> crooks and thieves.  Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, there is not.  I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>>>  Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>
>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>
>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>> (DDE and RR).
>>
>> Well, consider that those that voted are all "academics", and that
>> universities seems to be hot-spots for democratic ideology.
>>
>
> Again with this nonsense. There's no evidence that historians
> lean in any particular direction as a group, nor is there any
> evidence that universities lean one way or the other as a whole.
>

How long has it been since you were in college? My son graduated with
his Masters about 11 years ago. He did well, 3 professors perused
trying to have him to change his major, one of those wanted him to go
for his doctorate and teach at that university/college. He very often
commented that most of his professors leaned left with their comparisons
and comments during their lectures. I am guessing I am saying he was
smart enough to notice that as opposed to many of the left persuasion
students thinking that the lectures were what they normally hear in
their circles.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>On 7/17/2021 9:47 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>> On 7/16/2021 5:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>>> On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>>>>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>>>>>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>>>>>> bottom (41).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>>>>>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>>>>>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>>>>>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.
>>>>
>>>> The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
>>>> otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
>>>> presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
>>>> contest.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>>>>
>>>
>>> Historians typically lean to see things with a left sided point of view.
>>> As does the media.
>>
>> Have you ever really studied history? Or are you just parroting the
>> Republican party line?
>>
>> Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion?
>>
>
>
>For the era's that I am referencing above, I not only studied but lived
>and experienced that history.

What era is referred to above? And unless you formally studied history at the post
secondary level, you're not an historian, nor have you any idea
what an historian does.

On 7/17/2021 3:41 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>> On 7/17/2021 9:47 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>> On 7/16/2021 5:17 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>>>>>> On 7/16/2021 9:40 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Bill <nonegiven@att.net> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 9:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Interesting perspective. I think both parties have evolved to be
>>>>>>>> extreme. There is probably some game-theoretic explanation, like there
>>>>>>>> is for there being exactly 2 principle parties (the idea is that if you
>>>>>>>> have more than 2, say 3, then 2 of them will join forces to beat the third).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The latest presidential poll by historians was recently released.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are only two modern republican presidents in the top 10
>>>>>>> (DDE and RR). The next modern republican, GHWB, hits 21 (WJC is 19),
>>>>>>> and Ford (28), Shrub (29) and Nixon (31). DJT is four from the
>>>>>>> bottom (41).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other side you have JFK (8), Obama (10), Johnson (11),
>>>>>>> Clinton (19) and Carter (26). I note that Carter, the traditional
>>>>>>> whipping boy of foaming-at-the-mouth republicans (like KRW) beats
>>>>>>> out all the non-top-10 republicans except for GHWB.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No doubt. Those trying to right the wrongs hurt feelings.
>>>>>
>>>>> The presidential historians don't care about feelings, hurt or
>>>>> otherwise. They look at the entire term, all aspects of the
>>>>> presidency, accomplishments, failures. It's not a popularity
>>>>> contest.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Historians typically lean to see things with a left sided point of view.
>>>> As does the media.
>>>
>>> Have you ever really studied history? Or are you just parroting the
>>> Republican party line?
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence at all to support your assertion?
>>>
>>
>>
>> For the era's that I am referencing above, I not only studied but lived
>> and experienced that history.
>
> What era is referred to above? And unless you formally studied history at the post
> secondary level, you're not an historian, nor have you any idea
> what an historian does.
>

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Experience trumps, no pun intended, any thing that is written.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:39:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 7/16/2021 1:25 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:06:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>
>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>
>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I've
>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>
>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>
>>> No, there is not. I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>> Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>
>> Yeah, and the party of AOC is perfectly sane. That tells us all we
>> need to know about you!
>>
>
>Yes, it show you are dumb making such conclusions.

Today, there ARE only two choices. Yours is clear.

On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:53:09 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/2021 12:45 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 11:32:28 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/13/2021 1:02 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/11/2021 4:22 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Again, we come back to your incredible lack of self-awareness. ...and
>>>>>>> your lying, for that matter. More evidence of your leftism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you mean to reply to me? I don't advertise a political lean, but
>>>>>> if I did, it would NOT be left..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
>>>>
>>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
>>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's all
>>>> about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either party is
>>>> just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the people.
>>>
>>>
>>> By stating the above, you're CLEARLY not in the center. The Capitol
>>> insanity was a minor blip compared to what happened the whole year,
>>> all over the country, in the "mostly peaceful demonstrations".
>>> Billions of dollars in damage and thousands (mostly minority)
>>> businesses were burned to the ground and many killed. In the capitol
>>> riot, only one was killed, one of the "rioters", shot in the back.
>>
>>
>> OK, more of a back story... I always leaned conservative, and I voted
>> for Trump. I have ZERO tolerance for the insane left push back after
>> the George Floyd thing was blown WAY out of proportion. I would have
>> taken care of those rioters very quickly after they started looting and
>> burning cities down... pop, pop, pop...
>
> OK, but that's where we were and that's where we *ARE*. If you accept
> that, and you are, you are left.
>
>> Now then, after how Trump has reacted since losing the election, the
>> whole of the Republican party with him, I rethinking my political
>> beliefs.
>
> Reacted? Mean twitter posts?
>
>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>
> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>
>> I've
>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>> should be abolished.
>
> There is no middle in this one.

You clearly have your beliefs, and I have mine. I don't have to justify
my beliefs to someone on Usenet, nor do I have to accept your beliefs.

You have a certain way about posting that you antagonize and very much
attempt to coax a response out of the other party. You are an
instigator, and LOVE to argue. I'll have to pass on that, thanks.

On 7/15/2021 2:20 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:55:59 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/2021 9:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2021 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
>>>>
>>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
>>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's
>>>> all about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either
>>>> party is just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> Yes, not enough team spirit. I guess what you wrote is another of way of
>>> expressing my thought that "neither party consists entirely of saints!"
>>> Many of the genuinely rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and
>>> surely there are people drawing more unemployment benefits than they
>>> should. To be fair, not everyone starts from the same place in life, or
>>> attends schools of the same quality. There were 3 high schools in my
>>> hometown, and they reflected 3 socio-economic levels and 3 levels of
>>> property taxes. Even in the 2nd one, which I attended, there were kids
>>> boasting about family membership in the "yacht club". I was content to
>>> come to school wearing clothes which I mostly paid for with my part time
>>> job! : ) And I bet I learned to weld better and take care of my car
>>> better than any of those "yacht club" kids, to say nothing of developing
>>> some interest and knowledge about woodworking! : )
>>
>>
>> My high school was in a very small town - only one school. We were all
>> poor :)
>>
>> Yes, I'd agree with you about "saints". I'll take it a step further
>> though -- I think that political parties are a menace, and should be
>> done away with. Vote people in based on their beliefs... they shouldn't
>> have to sell their soul and morals to one of the big two parties...
>> least they be silenced by their party after stepping out of line.
>
> So you're against free speech and assembly, too. OK, you're going
> further and further left.

Not in the slightest, further Libertarian. I'm not in the slightest
against free speech, I'm not sure where you pulled that convoluted
notion from. It isn't black and white, but it seems that you like it
that way with Dems vs. Repubs. Why have more parties and options when
it can just be two sets of assholes on opposite sides of the political
spectrum arguing with each other all day all the while getting nothing
done? That's a solid idea that you have there.

On 7/15/2021 2:20 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:55:59 -0400, Michael Trew<mt999999@ymail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/14/2021 9:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>>> On 7/14/2021 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
>>>>
>>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
>>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's
>>>> all about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either
>>>> party is just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the
>>>> people.
>>>
>>> Yes, not enough team spirit. I guess what you wrote is another of way of
>>> expressing my thought that "neither party consists entirely of saints!"
>>> Many of the genuinely rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and
>>> surely there are people drawing more unemployment benefits than they
>>> should. To be fair, not everyone starts from the same place in life, or
>>> attends schools of the same quality. There were 3 high schools in my
>>> hometown, and they reflected 3 socio-economic levels and 3 levels of
>>> property taxes. Even in the 2nd one, which I attended, there were kids
>>> boasting about family membership in the "yacht club". I was content to
>>> come to school wearing clothes which I mostly paid for with my part time
>>> job! : ) And I bet I learned to weld better and take care of my car
>>> better than any of those "yacht club" kids, to say nothing of developing
>>> some interest and knowledge about woodworking! : )
>>
>>
>> My high school was in a very small town - only one school. We were all
>> poor :)
>>
>> Yes, I'd agree with you about "saints". I'll take it a step further
>> though -- I think that political parties are a menace, and should be
>> done away with. Vote people in based on their beliefs... they shouldn't
>> have to sell their soul and morals to one of the big two parties...
>> least they be silenced by their party after stepping out of line.
>
> So you're against free speech and assembly, too. OK, you're going
> further and further left.

It seems that your definition of "left" is synonymous with "bad", and
anyone that doesn't directly agree with your specific mindset is "left".
Gotcha, makes perfect sense now.

On 7/17/2021 8:37 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:39:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>> On 7/16/2021 1:25 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:06:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I've
>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>
>>>> No, there is not. I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>> Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>
>>> Yeah, and the party of AOC is perfectly sane. That tells us all we
>>> need to know about you!
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it show you are dumb making such conclusions.
>
> Today, there ARE only two choices. Yours is clear.
>

Thanks for showing your ignorance.

The ballot has many choices. In the last presidential election I chose
Not Trump. There are people on both sides I'd never vote for.

I make my own choices and don't follow the lead of Putin.

On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:25:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:

>On 7/17/2021 8:37 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:39:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/16/2021 1:25 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:06:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, there is not. I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>>> Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, and the party of AOC is perfectly sane. That tells us all we
>>>> need to know about you!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it show you are dumb making such conclusions.
>>
>> Today, there ARE only two choices. Yours is clear.
>>
>
>Thanks for showing your ignorance.
>
>The ballot has many choices. In the last presidential election I chose
>Not Trump. There are people on both sides I'd never vote for.
>
>I make my own choices and don't follow the lead of Putin.

The problem is that if a bunch of people choose different "not Trumps"
then Trump wins.

On 7/18/2021 8:17 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 23:25:28 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>
>> On 7/17/2021 8:37 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2021 16:39:22 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/16/2021 1:25 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 21:06:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <esp@snet.xxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/15/2021 2:19 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I never had a tolerance for Democrats. Then, after seeing how
>>>>>>>> Republicans can just "oust" Liz Cheney, amongst other things...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly what's wrong with "ousting" Liz?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is wrong with her having an opinion and stating it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>> realized that neither side is any better than the other, they are all
>>>>>>>> crooks and thieves. Political parts are a cancer to our country, and
>>>>>>>> should be abolished.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no middle in this one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, there is not. I've been a registered Independent all my adult life.
>>>>>> Conservative leanings, but the party of Eisenhower has gone nuts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, and the party of AOC is perfectly sane. That tells us all we
>>>>> need to know about you!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it show you are dumb making such conclusions.
>>>
>>> Today, there ARE only two choices. Yours is clear.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for showing your ignorance.
>>
>> The ballot has many choices. In the last presidential election I chose
>> Not Trump. There are people on both sides I'd never vote for.
>>
>> I make my own choices and don't follow the lead of Putin.
>
> The problem is that if a bunch of people choose different "not Trumps"
> then Trump wins.
>
He didn't though. Both parties had better candidates in the Primary but
they didn't make it.

Both parties have been taken over by the extremists. My issue is that
because I did not vote for Trump someone made the assumption I support
AOC. An incredibly dumb assumption.

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:

>> What era is referred to above? And unless you formally studied history at the post
>> secondary level, you're not an historian, nor have you any idea
>> what an historian does.
>>
>
>If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
>Experience trumps, no pun intended, any thing that is written.

Your experience is too limited to extrapolate beyond yourself.

That's the difference between you and a real historian.

The state is far bigger than Houston.
The Country is far bigger than Texas.
The World is far bigger than the USA.
The Solar system is far bigger than the Earth.
The Galaxy is far bigger than the Solar System.
The Universe is far bigger than the Galaxy.

On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 10:47:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
> On 7/15/2021 2:20 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:55:59 -0400, Michael Trew<mt99...@ymail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/14/2021 9:54 PM, Bill wrote:
> >>> On 7/14/2021 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
> >>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
> >>>>
> >>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
> >>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's
> >>>> all about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either
> >>>> party is just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the
> >>>> people.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, not enough team spirit. I guess what you wrote is another of way of
> >>> expressing my thought that "neither party consists entirely of saints!"
> >>> Many of the genuinely rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and
> >>> surely there are people drawing more unemployment benefits than they
> >>> should. To be fair, not everyone starts from the same place in life, or
> >>> attends schools of the same quality. There were 3 high schools in my
> >>> hometown, and they reflected 3 socio-economic levels and 3 levels of
> >>> property taxes. Even in the 2nd one, which I attended, there were kids
> >>> boasting about family membership in the "yacht club". I was content to
> >>> come to school wearing clothes which I mostly paid for with my part time
> >>> job! : ) And I bet I learned to weld better and take care of my car
> >>> better than any of those "yacht club" kids, to say nothing of developing
> >>> some interest and knowledge about woodworking! : )
> >>
> >>
> >> My high school was in a very small town - only one school. We were all
> >> poor :)
> >>
> >> Yes, I'd agree with you about "saints". I'll take it a step further
> >> though -- I think that political parties are a menace, and should be
> >> done away with. Vote people in based on their beliefs... they shouldn't
> >> have to sell their soul and morals to one of the big two parties...
> >> least they be silenced by their party after stepping out of line.
> >
> > So you're against free speech and assembly, too. OK, you're going
> > further and further left.
> It seems that your definition of "left" is synonymous with "bad", and
> anyone that doesn't directly agree with your specific mindset is "left".
> Gotcha, makes perfect sense now.

As much as I try to stay out of political discussions in a woodworking
newsgroup, I have to give you a huge +1 on that comment.

Where it gets even more tiresome is when the discussion isn't even related
to politics. Two people are going back and forth on a non-political issue, it
gets heated and someone (even in this newsgroup) comes back with "You're
an idiot, just like all leftists."

I wonder if those people do the same thing when they are sitting around the
table with family and friends. I truly believe that the anonymity of the internet
makes it too easy for people to say things that they would never say to the
same person if they were face to face. They might discuss the same topic, but
they would be a lot more civil about.

(Let's see what I get called for making these comments.)

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 10:47:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 2:20 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:55:59 -0400, Michael Trew<mt99...@ymail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7/14/2021 9:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>> >>> On 7/14/2021 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> >>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
>> >>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's
>> >>>> all about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either
>> >>>> party is just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the
>> >>>> people.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, not enough team spirit. I guess what you wrote is another of way of
>> >>> expressing my thought that "neither party consists entirely of saints!"
>> >>> Many of the genuinely rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and
>> >>> surely there are people drawing more unemployment benefits than they
>> >>> should. To be fair, not everyone starts from the same place in life, or
>> >>> attends schools of the same quality. There were 3 high schools in my
>> >>> hometown, and they reflected 3 socio-economic levels and 3 levels of
>> >>> property taxes. Even in the 2nd one, which I attended, there were kids
>> >>> boasting about family membership in the "yacht club". I was content to
>> >>> come to school wearing clothes which I mostly paid for with my part time
>> >>> job! : ) And I bet I learned to weld better and take care of my car
>> >>> better than any of those "yacht club" kids, to say nothing of developing
>> >>> some interest and knowledge about woodworking! : )
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My high school was in a very small town - only one school. We were all
>> >> poor :)
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I'd agree with you about "saints". I'll take it a step further
>> >> though -- I think that political parties are a menace, and should be
>> >> done away with. Vote people in based on their beliefs... they shouldn't
>> >> have to sell their soul and morals to one of the big two parties...
>> >> least they be silenced by their party after stepping out of line.
>> >
>> > So you're against free speech and assembly, too. OK, you're going
>> > further and further left.
>> It seems that your definition of "left" is synonymous with "bad", and
>> anyone that doesn't directly agree with your specific mindset is "left".
>> Gotcha, makes perfect sense now.
>
>As much as I try to stay out of political discussions in a woodworking
>newsgroup, I have to give you a huge +1 on that comment.
>
>Where it gets even more tiresome is when the discussion isn't even related
>to politics. Two people are going back and forth on a non-political issue, it
>gets heated and someone (even in this newsgroup) comes back with "You're
>an idiot, just like all leftists."
>
>I wonder if those people do the same thing when they are sitting around the
>table with family and friends. I truly believe that the anonymity of the internet
>makes it too easy for people to say things that they would never say to the
>same person if they were face to face. They might discuss the same topic, but
>they would be a lot more civil about.
>
>(Let's see what I get called for making these comments.)

+100

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 11:01:23 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<teamarrows@eznet.net> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 17, 2021 at 10:47:10 PM UTC-4, Michael Trew wrote:
>> On 7/15/2021 2:20 PM, k...@notreal.com wrote:
>> > On Thu, 15 Jul 2021 02:55:59 -0400, Michael Trew<mt99...@ymail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 7/14/2021 9:54 PM, Bill wrote:
>> >>> On 7/14/2021 11:32 AM, Michael Trew wrote:
>> >>>> On 7/13/2021 6:19 PM, Leon wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> LOL, Best to lean right vs. WRONG.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the post-trump era, after the capitol insanity, I'd say I'm pretty
>> >>>> well firmly in the center. Both sides are nothing but greed -- it's
>> >>>> all about money and power. I have no political loyalty -- either
>> >>>> party is just moving further and further extreme. No one is for the
>> >>>> people.
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, not enough team spirit. I guess what you wrote is another of way of
>> >>> expressing my thought that "neither party consists entirely of saints!"
>> >>> Many of the genuinely rich don't pay their fair share of taxes and
>> >>> surely there are people drawing more unemployment benefits than they
>> >>> should. To be fair, not everyone starts from the same place in life, or
>> >>> attends schools of the same quality. There were 3 high schools in my
>> >>> hometown, and they reflected 3 socio-economic levels and 3 levels of
>> >>> property taxes. Even in the 2nd one, which I attended, there were kids
>> >>> boasting about family membership in the "yacht club". I was content to
>> >>> come to school wearing clothes which I mostly paid for with my part time
>> >>> job! : ) And I bet I learned to weld better and take care of my car
>> >>> better than any of those "yacht club" kids, to say nothing of developing
>> >>> some interest and knowledge about woodworking! : )
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> My high school was in a very small town - only one school. We were all
>> >> poor :)
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I'd agree with you about "saints". I'll take it a step further
>> >> though -- I think that political parties are a menace, and should be
>> >> done away with. Vote people in based on their beliefs... they shouldn't
>> >> have to sell their soul and morals to one of the big two parties...
>> >> least they be silenced by their party after stepping out of line.
>> >
>> > So you're against free speech and assembly, too. OK, you're going
>> > further and further left.
>> It seems that your definition of "left" is synonymous with "bad", and
>> anyone that doesn't directly agree with your specific mindset is "left".
>> Gotcha, makes perfect sense now.
>
>As much as I try to stay out of political discussions in a woodworking
>newsgroup, I have to give you a huge +1 on that comment.
>
>Where it gets even more tiresome is when the discussion isn't even related
>to politics. Two people are going back and forth on a non-political issue, it
>gets heated and someone (even in this newsgroup) comes back with "You're
>an idiot, just like all leftists."
>
>I wonder if those people do the same thing when they are sitting around the
>table with family and friends. I truly believe that the anonymity of the internet
>makes it too easy for people to say things that they would never say to the
>same person if they were face to face. They might discuss the same topic, but
>they would be a lot more civil about.
>
>(Let's see what I get called for making these comments.)
Naive for thinking the idiots don't do it to their families' faces?

How's that?