C5 Golfer Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 Dr D's story of poor Audrey and school reminded me of this one.. Once upon a time, on a farm in Montana, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant & harvest it?" "Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen. "Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose. "Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did. At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen. "That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose. "Then will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves." "Excess profits!" cried Nancy Pelosi "Capitalist leech!" screamed Barbara Boxer "I demand equal rights!" yelled Jesse Jackson “I did not have sexual relations with that hen!” yelled Bill Clinton. And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities. Then a government agent came. He said to the little red hen, "You must not be so greedy." "But I earned the bread," said the little red hen. "Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone America can earn as much as they want. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle." And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand." But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread, because she joined the "party" and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established. Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared ... so long as there was free bread that "the rich" were paying for. Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs. Hillary got $8 million for hers. That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything. IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OF A COUNTRY OR WHAT?:lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 20, 2008 Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 oh sure now you've gone and made it personal:lol: It happens everywhere else more than it happens in Montana. we are however considering an immigration policy because all the people moving here are bringing their goofy politics and ideas with them!:lol: On a bright note our AG posted a letter to the editor of the washington post reminding everyone that if the supreme court upholds DC's assertion that the 2nd amendment is a collective and not an individual right it will nullify the contract between the US and the territory of montana that actually created the statehood of montana. So either we will no longer be a state because the contract has been broken or there will be a legal precedent set that makes any contract open to interpretations other than the original signers. oooooooh hows that for an interesting twist. montana's state constitution is very clear that it is in fact an individual right. this was stipulated to in the aforementioned contract which actually cements the fact that the us constitution intends the same definition. a few years worth of "interpretation" have muddied the waters a bit on the federal side but it still is what it is. the supremes can uphold the 2nd or open a huge legal can of worms. entertaining :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted February 20, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2008 oh sure now you've gone and made it personal:lol:It happens everywhere else more than it happens in Montana. we are however considering an immigration policy because all the people moving here are bringing their goofy politics and ideas with them!:lol: On a bright note our AG posted a letter to the editor of the washington post reminding everyone that if the supreme court upholds DC's assertion that the 2nd amendment is a collective and not an individual right it will nullify the contract between the US and the territory of montana that actually created the statehood of montana. So either we will no longer be a state because the contract has been broken or there will be a legal precedent set that makes any contract open to interpretations other than the original signers. :p Well if you become your own country -- do you have room for one more new citizen somewhere near the mountains? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Well if you become your own country -- do you have room for one more new citizen somewhere near the mountains? 5 years ago it would have worked great. now we are as split as the rest of the country. I guess all that 35% growth for the last 5 yrs had a price.:( Still its a nice flight of fancy.:D I think you'd fit right in:biggthump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailertrash Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 yippie another politcal discussion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 who yanked your chain?:lol: Its a slow day at the office nuttin better to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 yippie another politcal discussion! Aren't they great - it is the season you know... each morning, noon and evening news broadcast, the leading story is about Hillary "put a fork in her" Clinton and Mr. O with no money and some guy that was in the Senate when Fidel took office in Cuba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobD Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I get it.... The chicken represents the blue states who subsidize the red states The other animals represent the red states, who believe thier own rhetoric http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A00E2D71038F933A05752C0A9629C8B63 BobD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 you just got told like it is! http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2005/04/rich_and_poor_v.html funny you guys post fables and we're posting factual numbers. you call US cry babies! and before you try to pull the uppity east coast or urban CA elitist card read this http://news-info.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/6885.html Family values? red states have higher divorce rates too..... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?ex=1258174800&%2338;en=4f927c5f27fb9966&%2338;ei=5090 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDY_2_Carve Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Last I checked there's still snow on the mountains? Can't we save this for the offseason? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Al, please no politics on monday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack M Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 The Bobs' articles can be refuted in 2 words: population density. I'd bet a healthy sum that if the red taker states could secede, they'd do it tomorrow. Living in the 2nd most taking blue state, I can guarantee you it would not. (and living in the giving 1/4 of that state is.... quite something) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Once upon a time, on a farm in Montana, there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few grains of wheat. She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant & harvest it?" "Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. I quit reading there and had a nice Bacon Cheeseburger, Side of Buffalo wings, and started making a Cassoulet avec Foie Gras for dinner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trailertrash Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 who yanked your chain?:lol: Its a slow day at the office nuttin better to do. nobody, i just think this applies. why come to snowboarding site to talk politics? i am of the opinion that most of ones posts should be on topic, not off topic. but hey, thats just my opinion take it for what its worth. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Blame Fin, Trailer - he's the one who pulled the restriction on politics... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 nobody, i just think this applies. why come to snowboarding site to talk politics? i am of the opinion that most of ones posts should be on topic, not off topic. but hey, thats just my opinion take it for what its worth. :D Trailertrash -- At the top of this forum lies a sticky "rules for this forum" and it start at the top with bold letters. To All Carving Community Members This forum is to be used for any topic that is NOT related to alpine snowboarding. So essentially anything goes. I assumed the above - sorry if I offended you or anyone else in any comment - that was not my intent. I also thought "choice" comes into play here and if one is offended by comments made - most of them were very good and enlightening - one does not have to participate. The reason this is such a good site to discuss matters beyond board construction and stance angles - we are such a diverse group with such diverse environment and beliefs. Given that one can actually have an educated and rewarding experience in off topic discussions. I do respect those who want to stay in their own circle of trust and not venture out, I and I suspect others on this forum are open to suggestion and idea exchange and not afraid of accepting new ideas and progress.. CYA And again sorry if I or my post offended you -- that was and never is my intent. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willywhit Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think you guys just miss D Sub and his penchant for taking the opposing side on everything. the eclipse last night was very cool to witness while riding under the lights at the local bump. OK, I'll bite. Here's a great video I found yesterday looking for vids for the ipod. Colbert has some pretty big nuggets to roast G in a room full of folks that aren't supposed to think his stuff is funny. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> bonus track;colbert in the no spin zone, classic <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfZBtxrT5s&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfZBtxrT5s&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 The Bobs' articles can be refuted in 2 words: population density.I'd bet a healthy sum that if the red taker states could secede, they'd do it tomorrow. Living in the 2nd most taking blue state, I can guarantee you it would not. (and living in the giving 1/4 of that state is.... quite something) yes, you're right but it 1 does not change the fact and 2 pisses off the neocons (assuming they can read) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C5 Golfer Posted February 21, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 Al, please no politics on monday. No problem Art you too! I just removed my "I like Ike" button from my ski coat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted February 21, 2008 Report Share Posted February 21, 2008 I promise no red or blue colors on my clothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 yes, you're right but it 1 does not change the fact and 2 pisses off the neocons (assuming they can read) Interesting how the neocon label is so widely applied. I don't like Bush and Co. any better than you do. Yet somehow its convenient to lump everyone who thinks differently under one label. AND accuse them of illiteracy:lol: Dude your voice will have a much wider audience if you lose the absolutes and stick to rational arguments. I previously noted that we all come from different experiences and environments we do not see the world through the same eyes. We can however get a sense of each others experience if we discuss and listen without inflammatory rhetoric. Signed libertarian/constitutionalist leaning toward constructive anarchy:eplus2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 libertarian/constitutionalist leaning toward constructive anarchy:eplus2: I like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Tex you are the man :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: I liked the original version best :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: good on ya for not inciting a riot though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr D Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 oh sure now you've gone and made it personal:lol:It happens everywhere else more than it happens in Montana. we are however considering an immigration policy because all the people moving here are bringing their goofy politics and ideas with them!:lol: On a bright note our AG posted a letter to the editor of the washington post reminding everyone that if the supreme court upholds DC's assertion that the 2nd amendment is a collective and not an individual right it will nullify the contract between the US and the territory of montana that actually created the statehood of montana. So either we will no longer be a state because the contract has been broken or there will be a legal precedent set that makes any contract open to interpretations other than the original signers. oooooooh hows that for an interesting twist. montana's state constitution is very clear that it is in fact an individual right. this was stipulated to in the aforementioned contract which actually cements the fact that the us constitution intends the same definition. a few years worth of "interpretation" have muddied the waters a bit on the federal side but it still is what it is. the supremes can uphold the 2nd or open a huge legal can of worms. entertaining :p " Second Amendment an individual right The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide D.C. v. Heller, the first case in more than 60 years in which the court will confront the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Although Heller is about the constitutionality of the D.C. handgun ban, the court's decision will have an impact far beyond the District ("Promises breached," Op-Ed, Thursday). The court must decide in Heller whether the Second Amendment secures a right for individuals to keep and bear arms or merely grants states the power to arm their militias, the National Guard. This latter view is called the "collective rights" theory. A collective rights decision by the court would violate the contract by which Montana entered into statehood, called the Compact With the United States and archived at Article I of the Montana Constitution. When Montana and the United States entered into this bilateral contract in 1889, the U.S. approved the right to bear arms in the Montana Constitution, guaranteeing the right of "any person" to bear arms, clearly an individual right. There was no assertion in 1889 that the Second Amendment was susceptible to a collective rights interpretation, and the parties to the contract understood the Second Amendment to be consistent with the declared Montana constitutional right of "any person" to bear arms. As a bedrock principle of law, a contract must be honored so as to give effect to the intent of the contracting parties. A collective rights decision by the court in Heller would invoke an era of unilaterally revisable contracts by violating the statehood contract between the United States and Montana, and many other states. Numerous Montana lawmakers have concurred in a resolution raising this contract-violation issue. It's posted at progunleaders.org. The United States would do well to keep its contractual promise to the states that the Second Amendment secures an individual right now as it did upon execution of the statehood contract. BRAD JOHNSON Montana secretary of state Helena, Mont." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobdea Posted February 22, 2008 Report Share Posted February 22, 2008 Interesting how the neocon label is so widely applied. I don't like Bush and Co. any better than you do. Yet somehow its convenient to lump everyone who thinks differently under one label. AND accuse them of illiteracy:lol: Dude your voice will have a much wider audience if you lose the absolutes and stick to rational arguments. I previously noted that we all come from different experiences and environments we do not see the world through the same eyes. We can however get a sense of each others experience if we discuss and listen without inflammatory rhetoric. Signed libertarian/constitutionalist leaning toward constructive anarchy:eplus2: that was more aimed at C5 golfer and generally, if you have not noticed, I enjoy being a dick. a good example of that is in the auto tax thread, what I actually think is fairly close to what I posted but not that black and white. Neocon is fairly applicable to the majority of american conservatives, one example, they are more concerned about keeping taxes low instead of keeping a balanced budget to keep taxes low. Ron Paul is one of the very few exceptions in the republican party. Have you voted republican in the last 20 years? If so you've been supporting a neocon agenda. The dems have a bunch too, make no mistake they are just more subtle. The thing that really kills me is that lowering taxes does not stimulate the economy as a whole, it has been proven time and time again in this country and in other parts of the world. But still that's all guys like Al the certified old fart are worried about. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2007/11/tax-rates-and-growth-rates-some-graphs.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.