"Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown [Archive]

Barry

03-25-2010, 11:30 AM

YouTube - "Hell No! You can't!" . . . "Yes, we can." - Countdown (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYQrH-E74gA)

<object width="560" height="340">

<embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/tYQrH-E74gA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></object>

auroramagiceyes

03-25-2010, 08:04 PM

That was great Barry! Good find!

Clancy

06-24-2010, 11:13 PM

Unfortunately, Obama's healthcare bill is an unmitigated disaster for the people and a propaganda coup for the insurance industry. The very industry that makes our healthcare cost TWICE that of other western nations yet provides far inferior service just got the equivalent of the Wall St bailout from their puppet in the White House, assuring that the quality our healthcare will continue to be DEAD LAST in the western world while costing more than twice as much as it should.

Please, wake up.

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623?type=domesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews)

Tars

06-25-2010, 07:25 AM

Yes, we can, though frustratingly slowly, and against the naysayers, on both the right, and those on the far left. I'm proud to be a "glass half-full person"!

I love it every time Boehner opens his mouth.

Clancy

06-25-2010, 08:43 AM

I'm not at all in agreement with the republicans, their 'opposition' is just theater to bamboozle you into thinking we're actually getting healthcare reform. Obama's bill is a GOP/insurance industry wet dream, not even Bush could have gotten away with this.

I'm deeply dismayed that my fellow 'progressives' are so easily and blatantly fooled.

Yes, we can, though frustratingly slowly, and against the naysayers, on both the right, and those on the far left. I'm proud to be a "glass half-full person"!

I love it every time Boehner opens his mouth.

Valley Oak

06-25-2010, 09:53 AM

What should have Obama done then, Clancy?

I'm not at all in agreement with the republicans, their 'opposition' is just theater to bamboozle you into thinking we're actually getting healthcare reform. Obama's bill is a GOP/insurance industry wet dream, not even Bush could have gotten away with this.

I'm deeply dismayed that my fellow 'progressives' are so easily and blatantly fooled.

Clancy

06-25-2010, 10:17 AM

What should have Obama done then, Clancy?

Not bamboozling the public would be nice for a start. What they (Obama is just a figurehead) have done is ensured (pardon the pun) that the very industry that has ruined our healthcare system is even more richly rewarded for business as usual.

There's a wide spectrum of possible changes that could have improved our system, what they've done is even worse than no change at all.

Valley Oak

06-25-2010, 10:39 AM

I strongly disagree with both points you are making:

1. Obama was only able to accomplish as much as Congress was willing to let him. Remember that in order to have "cloture" in the US Senate there must be 60 votes. Obama did NOT have that because Independent Senator Lieberman held up his 60th vote until the healthcare plan was diluted down to his liking. He wasn't the only one, though, but his sabotage serves as an outstanding example.

Furthermore, when Obama offered previous plans, the public option among them, all of the Republicans and the "blue dog" Democrats in the senate shot them down in flames. Obama had no choice other than to eat humble pie in order to negotiate something for a sorely needed health care reform package.

2. I strongly disagree with you that the we would have been better off not doing anything at all. I can't emphasize this enough. I disagree with the way you are analyzing this and the "reasons" you give. We needed at least something precisely because, as Obama said, "The system is broken." What we will be getting now is much better than before.

With these two points clarified, Obama did not bamboozle anyone. He fought long and hard for you and me. Just because you choose to be blind to this fact doesn't mean it isn't true. He did NOT fight for the insurance companies. That is your delusion.

Truth be told, you come across as one of 3 things: an extremist leftist, someone who is immature as a person, or a conservative who is pretending to be left wing on this forum.

Not bamboozling the public would be nice for a start. What they (Obama is just a figurehead) have done is ensured (pardon the pun) that the very industry that has ruined our healthcare system is even more richly rewarded for business as usual.

There's a wide spectrum of possible changes that could have improved our system, what they've done is even worse than no change at all.

Clancy

06-25-2010, 10:48 AM

HELLO, the perpetual 'opposition' that prevents any change that benefits the people and always ends up benefiting corporate America IS the propaganda. Obama is playing his role perfectly, your defense of his gift to the insurance industry is proof.

I'm going to do my best to resign from opining. Good luck to us all.

I strongly disagree with both points you are making:

1. Obama was only able to accomplish as much as Congress was willing to let him. Remember that in order to have "cloture" in the US Senate there must be 60 votes. Obama did NOT have that because Independent Senator Lieberman held up his 60th vote until the healthcare plan was diluted down to his liking. He wasn't the only one, though, but his sabotage serves as an outstanding example.

Furthermore, when Obama offered previous plans, the public option among them, all of the Republicans and the "blue dog" Democrats in the senate shot them down in flames. Obama had no choice other than to eat humble pie in order to negotiate something for a sorely needed health care reform package.

2. I strongly disagree with you that the we would have been better off not doing anything at all. I can't emphasize this enough. I disagree with the way you are analyzing this and the "reasons" you give. We needed at least something precisely because, as Obama said, "The system is broken." What we will be getting now is much better than before.

With these two points clarified, Obama did not bamboozle anyone. He fought long and hard for you and me. Just because you choose to be blind to this fact doesn't mean it isn't true. He did NOT fight for the insurance companies. That is your delusion.

Truth be told, you come across as one of 3 things: an extremist leftist, someone who is immature as a person, or a conservative who is pretending to be left wing on this forum.

"Mad" Miles

06-25-2010, 11:17 AM

Ahh, the 'ol Rev. vs. Ref. debate. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme vieux merde...

I do not mean to cast personal aspersions here, Love ya both. Just piping up with my own useless visceral response.

Valley Oak

06-25-2010, 12:30 PM

I have re-edited this post:

I never studied French but I think it says something like:
More change, more of the same shit?

Is there such a thing as a "Rev. v. Ref" debate? Do you mean revolution v. reform?

I'm for revolution but until we get there then I'm willing to support reform. I'll take what I can get. Always have, always will.

The other thing that bothers me about Clancy's positions is that he appears to be fixated on the INDIVIDUAL that is occupying the White House and crying out loud that this POTUS or the other POTUS let us all down.

Precisely the point that I have been trying to make for years now, including on this list, is that the solutions that the Republic needs are systemic. We will not get nor can we get those kinds of profound, structural changes by electing a "Philosopher King" (Philosopher king - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher_king)).

This is what people like Clancy don't understand. He limits himself to whining about the fact that Obama hasn't done this and hasn't done that, didn't live up to his broken promises, etc. It was infantile in the first place to have EVER believed that Obama (or anyone else, for that matter), could or would do all of those things.

One of the enormous ironies here is that while Clancy appears (right now) to be more to the left than I am, is that he put faith in a failed system in the first place by voting for Obama with the idea in mind that Obama was going to introduce those systemic changes. By default, voting for Obama clearly demonstrates faith in a broken system of government, one that requires a new Constitution, new political institutions, and one that must be thoroughly remodeled.

I knew long before I voted for Obama in November of 2008 that he was NOT going deliver and at the same time that he could not deliver on all of those pipe dream promises and the expectations the electorate flooded on him. I was realistic and voted for someone whom I knew was going to be far less a detriment to society, such as McCain would have been or both Bushes were.

So who is the reformer and who is the revolutionary:

One man knows what is and isn't going to happen ahead of time and votes to get the best possible candidate in office, knowing that real change must be systemic (and not through one man's false promises)?

Or the other man who foolishly believes that the system actually works and voting with false hopes in just one person who cannot deliver, like a little child who believes in Santa Claus and then is heartbroken when he loses his innocence in learning that St. Nick doesn't exist?

I want REAL change! American democracy is a poor quality democracy and that system must be completely replaced. That is revolution.

But pinning all of your hopes on electing one person who is playing within the Matrix CANNOT even bring the needed reforms. It is precisely this paradox that people don't catch onto. The American people cannot get the revolution through the system because the system will not allow it. Hence, Obama's big disappointments.

And really, it's not so much Obama as it is the system that won't let him do his job. Obama has been in office long enough to demonstrate this. Holding Obama responsible for an unsatisfactory health care reform is equivalent to holding a rape victim responsible for her own rape.

Ahh, the 'ol Rev. vs. Ref. debate. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme vieux merde...

I do not mean to cast personal aspersions here, Love ya both. Just piping up with my own useless visceral response.

Hotspring 44

06-25-2010, 02:10 PM

Hotspring 44

06-25-2010, 02:17 PM

Too bad they can't really edit the health care legislation as easily as you can reedit your post! LOL!

I have re-edited this post:

I never studied French but I think it says something like:
More change, more of the same shit?...

"Mad" Miles

06-25-2010, 03:50 PM

Edward/VO,

You are correct on the first two answers in your last post. Except it's more, "The more things change, more of the same shit."

Reform vs. Revolution, the old Left Revolutionary conundrum.

Hotspring44, Clancy,

I pretty much agree with your positions. But I also think Edward makes good and important points. In his idiosyncratically dismissive way, admittedly.

You're all right. Your differences are matters of perspective and emphasis.

Edward/VO I think you put out more optimism and respect for the Health Care "overhaul" than it deserves. Will it help some people who weren't helped before? Too early to tell. But I wouldn't call it a major reform.

I respect President Obama's intellectual skills. But he's been hired to do a job, by very wealthy and entrenched interests. So far, it looks like he's been serving them quite well. Just as most of his predecessors did.

Does that mean everything he does is bad? It's not so simple, the world, and our country, is a complicated place.

Liked how he talked, rhetorically, during the campaign. Celebrated the victory of a black man in the White House. Never trusted him for a second, all the "Hope" and "Change" sloganeering, when the details were always vague and left plenty of wiggle room. The triumph of image over substance.

Completely oppose his policies with regard to: War in Afghanistan and Iraq, National Security, Official Secrets, pursuing security threats to our country, environmental protection, etc., etc.. He's essentially adopted and expanded Bush's "War On Terror" strategies and tactics, while putting a happy face on them.

He had to continue Bush's policies of bailing out the major financial investment houses. If he hadn't we'd be in far worse trouble than we and the rest of the world are. But he hasn't followed up with policies to rebuild the economy and create jobs. He mouths the words, but I don't see the action.

Of course, his power is limited, he's not a king. (Thankfully!) But he has the intellect, and the power of the bully pulpit. He seems to waffle more than command. They say there's a steep learning curve for the presidency. Time will tell. But based on his appointments and stated policy, I'm not too optimistic on many issues.

In the end, this is a system. Based on greed, prejudice, class and economic exploitation. Much of that is internalized, routinized and unconscious. The ideological blinders that limit the available choices for those in power are overwhelming and seemingly permanent.

Back in the day we used to debate the moral responsibility of our presidents, CEO's, etc. Many of my "comrades" (sic.) were of the firm opinion that these leaders knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong, and they did it anyway out of self interest.

I was more interested in how they came to think what they thought, interpret the world the way they did, and made the best choices available to them, given their understanding of what was real, feasible and best for everybody. What were their limits of conceptual possibility?

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. It just means one has to try and come up with the best explanation, from as many useful perspectives as possible. Not a simple task.

Enough, for now, I'm late for a family dinner date, and I'm cooking collards for the second time in my life! The key is the pork and pork fat, onions, garlic, red pepper, a little vinegar, salt and pepper in the pre-saute before sweating the greens into the mix.

Valley Oak

06-25-2010, 06:07 PM

Well, then. This said, would you also agree that the nation's problems are systemic? Because if the only thing we are going to do is wait around and expect someone we elect to do what we (radical progressives?) want, then we are going to end up waiting longer than we can live.

Let me put it this way: when was the last time we ever had a US president that satisfied what you believe they needed to do for the country? Was there ever one?

And I'm directing this question specifically to Hotspring, Clancy, and Miles. If your answer is 'no,' then what is the point in even voting? Why do you even vote in the first place? When are you going to learn? How many years, decades, elections, and disappointments have to take place before you realize that NO president, no matter who, will ever satisfy the policies that you support?

Because, again, if the answer is no (no potus ever did what you wanted them to do in your lifetime or that you can recall), then why do you continue to repeat the same mistake of even bothering to go out and vote?

Quite frankly, a person who after 50 years of going to the polls in the US to vote for the next president, and having been disappointed every single time, well, really now, you need to go see a shrink. When are you going to learn? Apparently never.

That's the feeling I get from Clancy and Hotspring. They have wasted their entire, long lives repeating the same, simple mistake of hoping that THIS TIME the candidate they helped get elected will do their job. Ain't gonna happen! Never has, never will. When are you going to learn? Why do you persist so incredibly stubbornly to repeat the same mistake, election after election after election. Disappointment after disappointment after disappointment. Decade after decade after decade. How depressing. How is it possible that you don't get it by now? Amazing.

This is just like the mule on the farm where the farmer ties a carrot around the mule's neck so that it hangs directly in front of the mule's face so the the mule (who never "get's it"), continues into infinity to move forward to do the farmer's work.

The American system of democracy exploits your blind gullibility to keep it going because you never get it.

No human being elected to the office of the presidency will ever do what you want him or her to do. If you want the kind of change you are talking about then those changes need to be systemic. And those systemic changes will NEVER come from any president.

Edward/VO,

You are correct on the first two answers in your last post. Except it's more, "The more things change, more of the same shit."

Reform vs. Revolution, the old Left Revolutionary conundrum.

Hotspring44, Clancy,

I pretty much agree with your positions. But I also think Edward makes good and important points. In his idiosyncratically dismissive way, admittedly.

You're all right. Your differences are matters of perspective and emphasis.

Edward/VO I think you put out more optimism and respect for the Health Care "overhaul" than it deserves. Will it help some people who weren't helped before? Too early to tell. But I wouldn't call it a major reform.

I respect President Obama's intellectual skills. But he's been hired to do a job, by very wealthy and entrenched interests. So far, it looks like he's been serving them quite well. Just as most of his predecessors did.

Does that mean everything he does is bad? It's not so simple, the world, and our country, is a complicated place.

Liked how he talked, rhetorically, during the campaign. Celebrated the victory of a black man in the White House. Never trusted him for a second, all the "Hope" and "Change" sloganeering, when the details were always vague and left plenty of wiggle room. The triumph of image over substance.

Completely oppose his policies with regard to: War in Afghanistan and Iraq, National Security, Official Secrets, pursuing security threats to our country, environmental protection, etc., etc.. He's essentially adopted and expanded Bush's "War On Terror" strategies and tactics, while putting a happy face on them.

He had to continue Bush's policies of bailing out the major financial investment houses. If he hadn't we'd be in far worse trouble than we and the rest of the world are. But he hasn't followed up with policies to rebuild the economy and create jobs. He mouths the words, but I don't see the action.

Of course, his power is limited, he's not a king. (Thankfully!) But he has the intellect, and the power of the bully pulpit. He seems to waffle more than command. They say there's a steep learning curve for the presidency. Time will tell. But based on his appointments and stated policy, I'm not too optimistic on many issues.

In the end, this is a system. Based on greed, prejudice, class and economic exploitation. Much of that is internalized, routinized and unconscious. The ideological blinders that limit the available choices for those in power are overwhelming and seemingly permanent.

Back in the day we used to debate the moral responsibility of our presidents, CEO's, etc. Many of my "comrades" (sic.) were of the firm opinion that these leaders knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong, and they did it anyway out of self interest.

I was more interested in how they came to think what they thought, interpret the world the way they did, and made the best choices available to them, given their understanding of what was real, feasible and best for everybody. What were their limits of conceptual possibility?

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. It just means one has to try and come up with the best explanation, from as many useful perspectives as possible. Not a simple task.

Enough, for now, I'm late for a family dinner date, and I'm cooking collards for the second time in my life! The key is the pork and pork fat, onions, garlic, red pepper, a little vinegar, salt and pepper in the pre-saute before sweating the greens into the mix.

LenInSebastopol

06-25-2010, 08:59 PM

It's what was wanted, at least by SOMEONE.
Didn't the opposition mention that it would cost more and do less?
The gov't is good for killing people and blowing up things.
Now it can do that to it's citizens (not the blowing up part)
with their own tax dollars, and it's legal.

After reviewing all the posts and the few months I've been bugging this board, I have about had it.
There are a few reasonable folks on here and even fewer that are willing to cogitate on what others post and respond as normal courteous human beings.
I find it hard to consider that there are folks out here that can take in and attempt to deal with much that is posted here. I know many here all on 'the search' but I've come to find true that I can believe one that is searching for the truth, and never one who has found it.
Some Guy, Hot Springs, Sci Guy, and a few others, keep on....I enjoyed the exchange. I'll pray for you all.

"Mad" Miles

06-25-2010, 10:19 PM

Well, then. This said, would you also agree that the nation's problems are systemic?

Of course, I wrote that earlier today, and have stated it many times here in the past.

Because if the only thing we are going to do is wait around and expect someone we elect to do what we (radical progressives?) want, then we are going to end up waiting longer than we can live.

Let me put it this way: when was the last time we ever had a US president that satisfied what you believe they needed to do for the country? Was there ever one?

And I'm directing this question specifically to Hotspring, Clancy, and Miles. If your answer is 'no,' then what is the point in even voting?

Lately I've been sitting around, but for most of my adult life, off and on, I've been an activist in various protest and single issue political movements. Single issue is a misnomer since the problems were/are complex and multivariegated. Most of my activist efforts had no direct connection to electoral politics.

Given the nature of our economic system, there have been few Presidents that I thought were, "good" overall. But some said and did good things. Jefferson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, all come to mind. They all had flaws as well. But not as many as most of the others.

The point of voting for me, is to participate in the process, make a statement about my goals and values by who I vote for and what party I belong to, and locally, influence the politics of my community. I often feel soiled when leaving the voting booth. Often I wonder as to the point, given the overall set-up.

Why do you even vote in the first place? When are you going to learn? How many years, decades, elections, and disappointments have to take place before you realize that NO president, no matter who, will ever satisfy the policies that you support?

Because, again, if the answer is no (no potus ever did what you wanted them to do in your lifetime or that you can recall), then why do you continue to repeat the same mistake of even bothering to go out and vote?

Just answered that, and your questions seem a bit repetitive and to me constitute hectoring. But's it's OK, I'm used to reading that from you and I know you mean well!

Quite frankly, a person who after 50 years of going to the polls in the US to vote for the next president, and having been disappointed every single time, well, really now, you need to go see a shrink. When are you going to learn? Apparently never.

Can you understand how someone might find this insulting? And I've only been going to the polls for 37 years. I'm 54.

That's the feeling I get from Clancy and Hotspring. They have wasted their entire, long lives repeating the same, simple mistake of hoping that THIS TIME the candidate they helped get elected will do their job. Ain't gonna happen! Never has, never will. When are you going to learn? Why do you persist so incredibly stubbornly to repeat the same mistake, election after election after election. Disappointment after disappointment after disappointment. Decade after decade after decade. How depressing. How is it possible that you don't get it by now? Amazing.

This is just like the mule on the farm where the farmer ties a carrot around the mule's neck so that it hangs directly in front of the mule's face so the the mule (who never "get's it"), continues into infinity to move forward to do the farmer's work.

The American system of democracy exploits your blind gullibility to keep it going because you never get it.

No human being elected to the office of the presidency will ever do what you want him or her to do. If you want the kind of change you are talking about then those changes need to be systemic. And those systemic changes will NEVER come from any president.

I don't see what you seem to be reading in Clancy and Hotsprings44 posts. Then you continue to ride, bait and insult them. Is this supposed to be a discussion? A conversation? Is this how you treat all of your friends and allies?

I've considered not voting as a form of protest. But there are plenty of people already doing that. I prefer to involve myself in the process because, in spite of the systemic flaws, the historical crimes and many other aspects of my criticism of our political set-up, it's my right, and if I'm going to complain about it, I should at least participate.

But I don't expect much good to come from it and I certainly don't think radical (going to the roots of the problem, not destruction!) substantial and needed structural and systemic change is going to come from voting alone.

What it would take, is a massive movement of people using non-violent direct action to demand the changes needed. I've worked to organize that off and on, and have participated in NVDA actions over the years. But no mass wave of NVDA, sufficient to demand radical or revolutionary reform, let alone substantial change, of the system, has arisen in my adult life. Not for the lack of my, and not enough, but quite a few others, trying.

So far a large and influential non-violent movement has rarely been been organized in U.S. history. Let alone world history. But there have been glimmers. The Civil Rights struggle in the fifties and sixties is a major example. There are others.

Hey Leninsebastopol,

Sometimes you say some interesting and relevant things, but most often I find you're trying to provoke, dismiss and irritate.

Good Luck in your future endeavours. Bon Voyage,

Hotspring 44

06-26-2010, 12:49 AM

Tars

06-26-2010, 07:25 AM

I see the "it's all gone to Hell" screamers at both ends. I check my email: My brother's a retired career military man, highly religious, who has me on his conservative alarmist email list. Obama's trying to drive the U.S. onto the hands of the Communist Nazis, destroy the capitalist system, destroy the lives of honest god-fearing Americans, etc.

Pop into WaccoBB: It's all gone to Hell - the corporate/military complex is using its dupe puppet in the White House to steal freedom/democracy from honest, peace-loving Americans.

There's a relatively small percentage of people at each end of the political spectrum who're absolutely sure they're absolutely right. If you don't agree with their viewpoint 100%, you're one of the poor brainwashed naive. Both ends apparently feel compelled to warn the rest of us duped, about the real truth about how things are.

The real REAL truth seems to be somewhere between the extremes; we all live in an immensely complex society encompassing the needs, fears, and desires of hundreds of millions of people. Because it's so complex, and therefore fluid, it's in constant fluctuating change. Change is scary, especially if one is absolutely sure that they only they know the real truth.

Change is less scary to us who realize that the realities of our society are an amalgam of the full range of individuals beliefs.

Go on, both ends of you, rant on. It apparently makes you feel better. Feeling better is good.

"Mad" Miles

06-26-2010, 10:28 AM

Nice one Tars!

I hope you don't have me in the "true believer" camp you describe. I may write/speak as if I'm confident in what I'm saying (sometimes others have mistaken that for unswerving belief), but I've never claimed a monopoly on "The Truth", and have pretty much mistrusted anyone who did. At least I have since I was ten or eleven years old!

Even when I was a Jesus Freak in High School, I didn't claim my beliefs to be universal, at least not in the details. "God is Love", appealed at the time. I suppose I've flipped that as an adult.

It is interesting how the complaints of the left and the right sometimes circle around to be criticisms of the same thing. "We" attribute the problems to different causes, but we identify many of the same problems. As for agreeing on potential solutions, good luck!

The social world is a complicated place made up by the interests of huge numbers of different people, true dat. But it's also a place where huge numbers of people are affected by forces that aren't reducible to their conscious, rational decisions.

Hard wired instinctual habits being one example. Social behaviors and assumptions about what is politically feasible based on generations of practice, are another broad category. Inherited economic, political, educational, correctional, military, ideological and other social systems. Group Think. Social Consensus. Memes. Tropes. etc.

When my brother was probing me for answers about the future of our immigration policy, I was reminded of a key lesson I learned studying political theory / philosophy. The more you learn, the more questions arise. Eventually you (or at least I) realized that while I didn't discover any definitive answers, the questions got progressively more complex and interesting.

For anyone seeking clear solutions, that may not be satisfying. But I find strange comfort in it. If I do have any fixed idea about our social reality, it's that we're all making it up as we go along. In the context of those irrational forces I've mentioned here, of course.

It's a beautiful morning. Onward,

edie

06-26-2010, 11:40 AM

[QUOTE=Mad
These aren't mutually exclusive positions. It just means one has to try and come up with the best explanation, from as many useful perspectives as possible. Not a simple task.

Enough, for now, I'm late for a family dinner date, and I'm cooking collards for the second time in my life! The key is the pork and pork fat, onions, garlic, red pepper, a little vinegar, salt and pepper in the pre-saute before sweating the greens into the mix.[/QUOT

Great dinner- I planted collard greens the first time this year- will see what's coming up-

..... now that we have a health insurance, why don't we just see what will happen and then start trying to change the things that don't work out. Nothing is easy and quick to change but we have to try and do the best. (Many try the best and some are just sitting behind a desk with a wealthy macho ego- that never will change.) Changes are irritating cause we don't know the real impact of what will be next...

Same as with the smart meter- looks like we have to get them installed. Now we will see how they work and change what doesn't work. Of course it would have been easier to do it correct in the first place but PGE was in a hurry to control- and feed their hungry wealthy macho ego accounts.

Valley Oak

06-26-2010, 12:32 PM

Dear Dennis,

I fully apologize to you for my rudeness.

I am very sorry for my disparaging remarks about your person, which, by the way, were completely untrue. And I want to apologize for any other calumnies that I may be neglecting to mention here.

If I should be so fortunate as to be privileged once more by your conversation, you have my word that I will not again breach the boundaries of civil discourse.

I also want you to know that your contributions to this list have consistently been, through the years, among the most intelligent, well informed, and most competent analyses offered. Furthermore, I cannot always read all of the posts people make to a long and controversial thread. I often have to select whose opinions I read and I always read yours because they are amongst the best and the brightest. Your views matter more to me than those of the majority of Wacco subscribers.

Once again, I offer my unequivocal and profuse apologies to you, and without any caveats.

Sincerely,

Edward

HELLO, the perpetual 'opposition' that prevents any change that benefits the people and always ends up benefiting corporate America IS the propaganda. Obama is playing his role perfectly, your defense of his gift to the insurance industry is proof.

I'm going to do my best to resign from opining. Good luck to us all.

Clancy

06-26-2010, 12:59 PM

Thank you Edward, I'm moved by your post and I accept your apology.

Dennis, AKA Clancy

Dear Dennis,

I fully apologize to you for my rudeness.

I am very sorry for my disparaging remarks about your person, which, by the way, were completely untrue. And I want to apologize for any other calumnies that I may be neglecting to mention here.

If I should be so fortunate as to be privileged once more by your conversation, you have my word that I will not again breach the boundaries of civil discourse.

I also want you to know that your contributions to this list have consistently been, through the years, among the most intelligent, well informed, and most competent analyses offered. Furthermore, I cannot always read all of the posts people make to a long and controversial thread. I often have to select whose opinions I read and I always read yours because they are amongst the best and the brightest. Your views matter more to me than those of the majority of Wacco subscribers.

Once again, I offer my unequivocal and profuse apologies to you, and without any caveats.

Sincerely,

Edward