Posts Made By: James Brown

Bill Guinn said:

There are several large 8-12" achromats available on ebay from China. Very good pricing, but does anyone have experience with them? Anyone tested them?

Bill:

Providing information about another auction service is technically a violation of the Terms of Service, 4.2.2. Still, this thread might be useful to newbie Astromarters, so I'll leave it go for a while, unless the site owner rattles my cage. I see that the lenses you are talking about are being sold by "great eye." This fellow has rightfully of wrongly been accused of fraud in the past. I'd think you would know this since my source is your 2005 thread asking the same questions.

http://www.astromart.com/forums/viewpost.asp?forum_post_id=305529&poll_id=&news_id=&page=

In any case I would say buying through that auction site from out of country involves an extraordinary risk. I wouldn't think of doing it with my money.

If anyone desires to discuss this further they should do so off line. I hardly delete anything here, but I will delete any discussion of any substance about a competitive auction site.

Buyer beware!

Jim

Jimmy Carter said:

"I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African American," Carter said. "I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way and I've seen the rest of the country that shared the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time ... and I think it's bubbled up to the surface, because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country."

Carter's statements are amazingly off base. In the first place the actual election results prove him wrong. This is beyond debate. Secondly, according to the article, Carter draws equivalency between the vocal nimrods who carry Obama=Hitler signs at rallies and the 50% of Americans who oppose some of Obama's policies. One would hope that a former president would have more insight and discernment than that...

Sadly, this is just more of the same old crap, "if you don't agree with me you must be a "idiot" or "racist" or "fill in the blank." It is tragic. It also confirms everything I have thought about Carter for years.

The facts are indisputable:

1. Yes, racism still exists.
2. Some minor portion of the opposition to Obama is racially motivated.
3. Notwithstanding 1 and 2, the vast majority of opposition to Obama is policy based and racially neutral.

Carter has insulted about 65,000,000 Americans including me, Jack Day etc. etc. etc. What Carter has done is unforgivable.

Jim

Very cool. You have a nice deck!

Jim

Mike Strieber said:

See, and this is where you guys get your news. No wonder liberals are usually wrong. Check your sources.
Mike

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0909/wolf_bombs_on_jeopardy.html

I've always liked Dana Delany. Do you remember her in "China Beach"?

Lee Spain said:

Every wonder what the bottom of a slippery slope looks like? Here you go:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/CrimePrevention/DG_078569

Damn. I'll be heading off to England and the Netherlands on business soon. I guess I'll have to leave my kyoketsu-shoge at home...

J

david elosser said:

Well, President Obama-Kennedy may not know what to do about Afghanistan, but he's ready to move quickly to save our nearly bankrupt news orginazitions. How would we save them? Sit down everyone... no, I mean it. Sit down if you're not already...

TAX CUTS!
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/59523-obama-open-to-newspaper-bailout-bill

David E

Gaak!

Thanks a lot David, now I’ve got Diet Pepsi coming out of my nose!

This is by far the stupidest proposal I have ever seen floated by Congress, ever, bar none.

Let me connect the dots for you. First, from the article:

[COLOR="Blue"]“The president said he is "happy to look at" bills before Congress that would give struggling news organizations tax breaks if they were to restructure as nonprofit businesses.

"I haven't seen detailed proposals yet, but I'll be happy to look at them," Obama told the editors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade in an interview.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) has introduced S. 673, the so-called "Newspaper Revitalization Act," that would give outlets tax deals if they were to restructure as 501(c)(3) corporations.” [/COLOR](emphasis mine)

Now, I'll quote from the IRS guidelines regarding 501(c)(3) qualification:

[COLOR="Maroon"]To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.[/COLOR]

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html (emphasis mine again)

Can you say "hush money?" I can only imagine the dialog behind closed doors in Wshington, "I know, lets give the newspapers a tax break to avoid politics altogether. Also, we can hopefully get rid of that nasty capitalist from Australia..." No doubt Congress and the President would love it if all news agencies were prohibited by law from influencing legislation or participating in any campaign activity for or against candidates. How convenient. How positively Orwellian. If Congress wants to censure someone I nominate Ben Cardin (D-Md) for blatant Constitutional and civic ignorance (or malfeasance) of the highest order.

Jim

Hi Jeff:

Interesting Op-ed piece. There are actually two groups who seem to advance the notion that the radio personalities are the true face and power of the Republican party. The radio guys themselves, I suppose. I am certain however that much of the left on this forum and the world at large actually believes that the radio guys are indeed the representative voices of the party and all Republicans in general.

The left loves and thrives on this notion. It makes it so much easier to pigeonhole real life Rs as mind-numbed and hateful. I like P. Bailey, but it seems at times that the only things he knows about real-life Republicans is what Rush told him. It's not surprising when he gets it wrong.

The nomination of moderate McCain was telling about the true nature of the party. His selection of Palin can be viewed as a swing for the fence in light of hard data that proved he was going to lose. He lost anyway of course because the blatant appeal to the social conservatives and radio guys didn't make any difference.


Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

The score is tied, bases loaded, two out in the ninth and here comes the three and two pitch:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul

Hi Rod:

Isn't the committee vote more like the middle of the second inning?

Alternatively, the Senate plan appears to have dropped the public option completely, or am I reading that incorrectly? Obviously single payer never saw the light of day. Maybe the proper way of viewing this is that the game is already over but the players refuse to yield the field?

Jim

Mike Strieber said:

Why does the White House continue to pick these petty fights with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Steele, Fox News, etc.? And they do so with their facts wrong. This latest one with Fox News will do nothing but embolden Fox (with a far superior number in viewership than the other networks) and one the White House is certain to lose in the long run. BTW, why aren't they complaining about MSNBC? Oh, never mind...
Mike
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/12/white-house-escalates-war-words-fox-news/

Hi Mike:

An interesting clip from the article:

"As for Dunn's complaint about Fox News' coverage of the Obama campaign, a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News' stories on Obama's Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.

On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories -- a spread of 59 points."

I'll have to go find that Pew Research Center study.

Jim