jmo

I want quality and multi Fuel. I like MSR so I'll stick with them. Which is better?

I'm in Tacoma a looking for a partner for a Rainier attempt this year.

jmo, i hate to be the one pointing this out, and i don't suppose you will accept it, but here goes... You began recently to post statements, assertions and leading questions that perhaps in your mind are 'true' or 'factual' or 'clear as day'. Things like, 'Obama is no messiah', 'why is Obama appointing criminals?', 'Obama is out to destroy capitalism', 'Obama wants to infringe our civil rights', etc (some of these are paraphrased, but i think the essence is accurate). You've also stated several times that the market has fallen significantly since the election, or since the inauguration, as though there is a direct correlation and there might not be anything else than Obama out there in the wide world that is driving markets. In the case of the FOX article that you employed to 'prove' your assertion that 'Obama is no messiah' (no one here, certainly not me, ever asserted that he was--classic strawman), I attempted to demonstrate to you that the reality addressed by that article is a little more complicated than the article would have us believe. I didn't 'prove' that the article was wrong (not my intent), but that it wasn't exactly right either. I don't think that has sunk in with you--in which case, you might be a little more hesitant about your statements--and maybe it never will. You wish to engage in 'civil political debate', yet you insist on declaring that the analyses and solutions to problems are very simple, and that the Obama administration are either very cynical or very stupid for not realizing how simple things really are. (How can we pronounce such final judgements on an administration that is less than two months old, anyway?) For example, you stated in another thread that there are four or so things you would do about the economic situation were you president. Yet, reducing spending to balance the budget could actually make it worse, counter-intuitive as that may seem. Econ 101 describes the economy as a circulation of wealth, and recessions are in part the absence of circulation, so there may actually be a role for government in trying to restart that circulation, even at the risk of future inflation due to deficits. Balanced budgets result as much from increased tax receipts due to a strong economy as they do from cutting spending. There is plenty to debate in the above paragraph, and i'd be happy to do so--i might learn something. But if you insist on making simplistic, and frankly antagonistic statements, then don't be surprised if someone who appreciates the complexities of the situation eventually throws up his hands and gets nasty about it. It has little to do with 'liberal' v 'conservative'. I get in just as much trouble around here with j_b as i might with you, and those labels just serve to perpetuate simplistic and uninteresting shouting matches, when in fact there are interesting things to talk about. Bradley, I sent this as a PM, but your box is full. You brought up some good points both in the debate and about it. Someone else mentioned that some of the things I posted were passive aggressive instead of openly aggressive, and I posted an apology in one of these threads. Sometimes we miss our own bias in what we post. There are several different attitudes here, and the different personalities become apparent quickly. I enjoyed the discussions with you and a few others. It seemed that some posters didn't even read what wrote before attacking me for things I specifically said I was against. Your posts about the Earmarks made me stop and think about it for a bit. It wouldn't be politically feasible for Obama to go on a crusade against earmarks, so it's understandable that he went along with it recently. He should have known better and not campaigned on that position, but I'll cut him some slack here and not hold it against him. There are plenty of bigger things. You are also right that there is no direct correlation between Obama and the stock markets plunge. I believe it was related to him, but I should be more careful about presenting my beliefs as facts. "Obama is no messiah"? Strawman arguement. Point taken. "Obama appointing criminals." Iflammatory, yes but they have all admitted to not paying them. "Obama want to take away our civil liberties." That is a fact that can proven. The 2nd Amendment is a civil right and Obama has a very long history of supporting legislation to infringe it. can't take the heat or not worth my time? People will think what they want to. Maybe it's a little of both. When people post intelligent thoughtful replies, it's worthwhile. When I get attacked by people for things I haven't even said or implied I start to wonder. I realize that my comment about him being the messiah wasn't very helpful. In any case, I've gotten many complaints from my wife about spending too much time here. To end it all, thank you for the intelligent and educational post. I will keep in mind what wrote, though there are still some that will get nasty no matter how I write things.

For me, the point is generally not to convince anyone of anything. I participate in these discussions mostly for recreation but also because I actually find it compelling to read how some knucklehead who I completely disagree with views the world. It is interesting and occasionally educational. Good Point. It has been both.

Fair enough. tvash said the same thing, so I apologize for any remarks I made that that were snide or insulting. Except for the previous post in this thread. No one is going to convince anyone of anything, so political discussion here is really pointless.

Scooter Libby got what he deserved. The fact that I wasn't on this board simply explains where my opposition to that was at the time. I love the way that you guys project your own intolerance and bias on to others. I did not say any of what you think I want, and specifically said the opposite. Where are you getting this baby jesus stuff? Government officials criticizing each other is fine. So is the press criticizing the government. Government officials responding to critics by attacking and trying to marginalize them is wrong. No one is going to take our liberties away all at once. They'll do it one piece at a time. The right to oppose is also wrong in socialist countries At one point I thought it was possible to have civil politcal debate. I was wrong. Up until now, I've hardly thrown any mud, despite all that's been thrown back at me. I have better things to do with my time than argue with a bunch of third grade dropouts who can convince themselves they are right by bashing down every who disagrees with them. Enjoy your litter box.

You implied it because the Nazis are the most famouse goose stepping fascist and perhaps the only ones. According to dictionary.com, fascists are "1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." Wikipedia says essentially the same thing, as does encyclopedia.com. Fascism is simply socialism with a nationalistic focus. Conservatives are fascists. Republicans, when they stick to the principles they say, are not fascists. Almost all are for smaller government. In this forum, the conservatives throw far less mud than liberals, left wing, or democrats. Who's intolerant?

As I said, this isn't about partisanship, it's about principles. I wasn't very active on this board at the time of Karl Rove. So, that's where I was the. You made the accusation, now prove it. Name one instance when a republican government official, holding or representing one holding an office engaged in a campaign to discredit one critic. "if it's fair for one side, then it's fair for the other." Only brings hard feelings and more partisanship, and is counterproductive to anything useful.

I'll clarify. Here's the lie "basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable. " I said nothing of the sort. I also said nothing about goose stepping. Before you accuse conservatives of being Nazis, remember that Nazis were socialists.

Fox news is not the only source for articles like the original post. Not the change they voted for http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/233mrlvq.asp?pg=1

"President Barack Obama's team is helping lead an effort to cast Limbaugh, a polarizing, conservative talk radio show host, as the Republican Party's new face, using campaign-style attacks against a high profile target." Source: What I have a problem with is that Obama team, who are on the government payroll are leading the coordinated attack against Rush. While the 1st Amendment doesn't prohibit this, it violates the spirit of the Amendment and why it was put in place. The 1st Amendment exists to ensure the people have a right to disagree with their government. Now the government is attacking Rush for expressing his opinion. This is wrong. I know there are few fans of Rush on this board. I say this as a matter of principle, not politics. In my opinion, this would be just as wrong if it were George Bush attacking Al Franken>

I completely agree agree. I opposed all the bailouts under both Bush and Obama. I feel the reward irresponsibility and punish those who did the right thing and lived within their means.

"the investor class has been waging war on the rest of us. time to fight back, i say." What exactly did you mean by that? To answer your question about why, Mr Buffet get most of his income from capital gains and dividends. Those are taxed at only 10-15%. If his secretary is single and makes more than 32k a year, they will move into the 25% tax bracket. With deductions, it's really more like 40k. I agree with this post. It does not seem fair that he should pay a smaller percentage, despite making more. We have a different idea of responsibility though.

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable. Plus, even Tvash says it is. i don't think it is "false", i think it is grossly biased. and the fact that it receives the tvash seal of approval means what, exactly? basically, anything that doesn't add to your crypto-fascist propaganda isn't reputable. More liberal lies. The only media source I've said is disreputable on this forum is snopes. All the liberals on this board have attacked the source of several articles I've posted. I have only disputed one, and in that case I agreed that snopes was right. tvash thinks the WSJ is a reputable source. tvash also is about as left wing as they come. You seem to also be left wing, but dimiss the WSJ as right wing propaganda. You two should coordinate your attacks better. Could you kindly put up a list of 5-10 news sites that you personally would accept as a reputable source?

Is it possible that any of these greedy capitalist pigs making more than 200k a year got their through their own hard work and initiative? Why should we punish that by making them pay for others? I can't even see how making the rich poor will benefit the poor. Make them pay for what? For your envy and greed?

sinking $1 trillion a year in the military is no less big government, so let's quit with the rightwing ideological framing. Get a clue, freak. I've argued here for years for a massive reduction in military spending. I agree we need to reduce military spending. But first both parties need to get over thier "world police force' mentality. Otherwise it should stay the same.

Why isn't it? If you think a mainstream publication like the WSJ is false, it's on you to prove. You all have pretty high standards for media. Basically, anything that doesn't add to your liberal propaganda isn't reputable. Plus, even Tvash says it is.

Typical rightwing fear-mongering. "Despite claims to the contrary, the President’s proposals concerning the top two income tax rates, limitations on itemized deductions and personal exemptions, and the carried interest tax break would affect only a very small fraction of small business owners. In fact, most small businesses would benefit substantially — from proposals to provide tax cuts to lower- and middle-income tax payers in the form of the Making Work Pay tax credit and to reform the health care system." http://www.cbpp.org/2-28-09tax.htm How about the taxes on energy that will hit everyone? Go back and read the WSJ article I posted on page 1.

Thanks for the suggestions.

Anybody know of one?

I did read the piece. Some makes sense. Some I agree with. Some I'm not sure of. That why I offered an alternate opinion.

As opposed to having his wife's identity as a secret agent exposed? Both are an inappropriate response to criticism. Faults of one administration do not in any ways justify the faults of the next. One person contacting him, would be doing their job. Maybe two. but FOUR?

I find it disturbing that within a day of criticizing the administration he was contacted by four senior staff members. Here is an alternate opinion from a reputable source. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Not entirely. But it's close.

Despite all the big press that those evil greedy corporations get, the majority of jobs in the US are created by small businesses. Obama's tax increases on the those evil rich over achievers will also hit small business owners, and in a much harder way than it will hit the corporations.