Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 24 Dec 2009 08:04 In article <a36e822b-2118-4072-b2d3-a8b7576e8d17 @u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Dudley.Cornman(a)eku.edu says... > > On Dec 23, 7:11�pm, BAR <sc...(a)you.com> wrote: > > In article <4b32966f$0$4855$9a6e1...(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:28:33 -0500, BAR wrote: > > > > In article <vl25j51hd04tk69n87t7j48ep5lgq62...(a)4ax.com>, > > > > xslee...(a)aol.com says... > > > >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:19:23 -0600, Chris Bellomy > > > >> <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > > > >>> I don't feel like government tells me how to run my life at all, > > > >>> except for ignorant drug laws and the sort. > > > > > >> Do drug laws stop you from using drugs? > > > > > > Gray areas, its all gray areas. And if you are an adherent of > > > > situational ethics it is all about the definition of "law." > > > > > Situational ethics. Is that where the strongest grab everything and > > > then the history books say they were right? > > > > Does Obama know that he can get hummers from interns in the oval office > > while talking to Nancy Pelosi? > > "Rekon" if Nancy got one... she's be any less nasty? :) Women should come with a one time give back option. I've tried to give my wife back to her father many times under the premise that I didn't get full disclosure.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Dec 2009 13:27 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:45:20 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >Jack Hollis wrote, On 12/23/09 6:26 PM: >> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:29:12 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> >> wrote: >> >>> Jack Hollis wrote, On 12/23/09 3:26 PM: >>>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:19:23 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't feel like government tells me how to run my life >>>>> at all, except for ignorant drug laws and the sort. >>>> Do drug laws stop you from using drugs? >>> Do taxes stop you from being rich? >> >> No, but they stopped me from being richer. Perhaps I could have >> retired at 50 instead of 55. > >If by "retired" you mean "permanently unemployed," sure! What's the difference? I have no intention to ever work for money again. That's about as permanently unemployed as it gets.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Dec 2009 13:30 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 22:45:51 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >> I'm happy to pay taxes for some things, like the police and the >> military but not for others, like Social Security, Medicare, public >> schools (K-12 and colleges) and hundreds of other things the >> government have no business being involved in. > >Hey, I love peace and have to pay for war. That's just >how the deal works. Sometimes in order to get peace, first you have to have war. In any case, providing for national security is one of the few legitimate function of the government.
From: Jack Hollis on 24 Dec 2009 13:46 On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:48:10 -0500, Horvath(a)net.net wrote: >>My only fear is that my 401k, IRA, Roth >>IRA and other accounts are not nationalized. > >They can't do that, can they? If that happens, I'm destitute. It >probably won't happen since congressmen invest in some of those. http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/10/23/would-obama-dems-kill-401k-plans.html
From: Don Kirkman on 24 Dec 2009 14:30
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Carbon wrote in article <4b32966f$0$4855$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>: >On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:28:33 -0500, BAR wrote: >> In article <vl25j51hd04tk69n87t7j48ep5lgq62915(a)4ax.com>, >> xsleeper(a)aol.com says... >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:19:23 -0600, Chris Bellomy >>> <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>>> I don't feel like government tells me how to run my life at all, >>>> except for ignorant drug laws and the sort. >>> Do drug laws stop you from using drugs? >> Gray areas, its all gray areas. And if you are an adherent of >> situational ethics it is all about the definition of "law." >Situational ethics. Is that where the strongest grab everything and >then the history books say they were right? "Situational ethics" is certainly not "do whatever you want." It was developed as a serious approach to making *ethical* decisions suited to the circumstances, not on individual desires. It acknowledges that one set of rules--religious, political, personal--*cannot* fit all life situations. In fact, it was reflected in the theme of Obama's speech at the Nobel ceremonies: peace, saving lives, acknowledging the rights and needs of others, may be the principles a person or a society intends to live by, but in the real world there are contravening needs: resisting evil, or saving one's own life so as to be able to save others later. The roots of situational ethics go back to serious theological and philosophical ethicists, at least as far as the 1930s and 1940s when Reinhold Niebuhr and others wrestled with the implications of German political developments and other threats to peace and freedom. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net |