J
OT government
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
G
Gig Miller
Guest
On May 25, 9:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Can it be true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> Jobst Brandt
I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
> Can it be true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> Jobst Brandt
I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
Gig Miller wrote:
> On May 25, 9:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Can it be true?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
Bill "tech...BS" S.
> On May 25, 9:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> Can it be true?
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>>
>> Jobst Brandt
>
> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
Bill "tech...BS" S.
A
A Muzi
Guest
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Can it be true?
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> Gig Miller wrote:
>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
>> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
> plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
> Bill "tech...BS" S.
I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
out of sand.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>> Can it be true?
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> Gig Miller wrote:
>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
>> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
> plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
> Bill "tech...BS" S.
I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
out of sand.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
On May 25, 8:03 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Can it be true?
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> > Gig Miller wrote:
> >> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
> >> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
> > plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
> > Bill "tech...BS" S.
>
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Truman did it to Youngstown Steel, although he couldn't make it
stick. Even Nixon fixed prices. Remember that? I don't think
government is accomplishing much by fussing with interst rates. Maybe
it is time to nationalize something -- like your bike shop. We can
start small -- appropriate your DIY health plan.
>
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
But **** Cheney would somehow make a lot of money in the process. --
Jay Beattie.
> >> [email protected] wrote:
> >>> Can it be true?
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> > Gig Miller wrote:
> >> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff coming
> >> from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
> Bill Sornson wrote:
> > Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
> > plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
> > Bill "tech...BS" S.
>
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Truman did it to Youngstown Steel, although he couldn't make it
stick. Even Nixon fixed prices. Remember that? I don't think
government is accomplishing much by fussing with interst rates. Maybe
it is time to nationalize something -- like your bike shop. We can
start small -- appropriate your DIY health plan.
>
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
But **** Cheney would somehow make a lot of money in the process. --
Jay Beattie.
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
A Muzi wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Can it be true?
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>> Gig Miller wrote:
>>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
>>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
>> plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
>> Bill "tech...BS" S.
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Can it be true?
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>> Gig Miller wrote:
>>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
>>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even before???
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that? (I
>> plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.)
>> Bill "tech...BS" S.
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
T
On May 25, 7:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Can it be true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> Jobst Brandt
You know, I've never met the President, any President for that matter,
but I get the suspicion that, for all his bumbling simpleton aspects,
if he was just having a few beers at the ranch Little Boots would be a
hell of a fellow. And I seem to think that you couldn't find a truer
friend than him if you were friends. No, the problem with the Bush
presidency is not Bush but the monsters behind him in the shadows.
It's probably the Republican National Committee that's actually
running things nowadays. Once they asked the Bush family for a favor,
now they've asked the McCain family for a favor. It's kind of like the
Corleones. The Democratic machinery, a la Chicago in the Old Days, was
the Keystone Cops crossed with petty larceny and a broken leg or two.
The Republican machinery? Of Evil, learned much it has. We will
probably get a Democratic President next, and he/she will be
forgettable. The country is ripening for a messianic (but not
necessarily religious) candidate out of left field.
> Can it be true?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> Jobst Brandt
You know, I've never met the President, any President for that matter,
but I get the suspicion that, for all his bumbling simpleton aspects,
if he was just having a few beers at the ranch Little Boots would be a
hell of a fellow. And I seem to think that you couldn't find a truer
friend than him if you were friends. No, the problem with the Bush
presidency is not Bush but the monsters behind him in the shadows.
It's probably the Republican National Committee that's actually
running things nowadays. Once they asked the Bush family for a favor,
now they've asked the McCain family for a favor. It's kind of like the
Corleones. The Democratic machinery, a la Chicago in the Old Days, was
the Keystone Cops crossed with petty larceny and a broken leg or two.
The Republican machinery? Of Evil, learned much it has. We will
probably get a Democratic President next, and he/she will be
forgettable. The country is ripening for a messianic (but not
necessarily religious) candidate out of left field.
E
Eric Vey
Guest
A Muzi wrote:
>
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
>
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
Last I heard, private oil companies control only 6% of the world's oil.
93% of it is owned by State owned companies.
>
> I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to nationalize
> the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least that was funny!
>
> Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd run
> out of sand.
Last I heard, private oil companies control only 6% of the world's oil.
93% of it is owned by State owned companies.
T
Tim McNamara
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> Can it be true?
> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> >> Gig Miller wrote:
> >>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
> >>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even
> >>> before???
>
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that?
> >> (I plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.) Bill "tech...BS"
> >> S.
>
> > I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to
> > nationalize the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least
> > that was funny!
>
> Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
>
> > Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd
> > run out of sand.
>
> Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
You mean the Exxon tax? You pay more in windfall profits to oil
companies than you do in taxes to the government when you buy a gallon
of gas.
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> [email protected] wrote:
> >>>> Can it be true?
> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>
> >> Gig Miller wrote:
> >>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
> >>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even
> >>> before???
>
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that?
> >> (I plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.) Bill "tech...BS"
> >> S.
>
> > I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to
> > nationalize the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least
> > that was funny!
>
> Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
>
> > Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd
> > run out of sand.
>
> Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
You mean the Exxon tax? You pay more in windfall profits to oil
companies than you do in taxes to the government when you buy a gallon
of gas.
T
Tim McNamara
Guest
In article
<0a2d3f8d-0f17-4c50-9ca3-7204d745d816@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 25, 7:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > Can it be true?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> You know, I've never met the President, any President for that matter,
> but I get the suspicion that, for all his bumbling simpleton aspects,
> if he was just having a few beers at the ranch Little Boots would be a
> hell of a fellow. And I seem to think that you couldn't find a truer
> friend than him if you were friends. No, the problem with the Bush
> presidency is not Bush but the monsters behind him in the shadows.
Bush is a problem, as he is a weak President who serves those masters
rather than serving the public good.
> It's probably the Republican National Committee that's actually
> running things nowadays. Once they asked the Bush family for a favor,
> now they've asked the McCain family for a favor. It's kind of like the
> Corleones. The Democratic machinery, a la Chicago in the Old Days, was
> the Keystone Cops crossed with petty larceny and a broken leg or two.
> The Republican machinery? Of Evil, learned much it has. We will
> probably get a Democratic President next, and he/she will be
> forgettable. The country is ripening for a messianic (but not
> necessarily religious) candidate out of left field.
Funny that the party of the religious right is also the party of he
evilest actions.
<0a2d3f8d-0f17-4c50-9ca3-7204d745d816@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
[email protected] wrote:
> On May 25, 7:36 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > Can it be true?
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
> >
> > Jobst Brandt
>
> You know, I've never met the President, any President for that matter,
> but I get the suspicion that, for all his bumbling simpleton aspects,
> if he was just having a few beers at the ranch Little Boots would be a
> hell of a fellow. And I seem to think that you couldn't find a truer
> friend than him if you were friends. No, the problem with the Bush
> presidency is not Bush but the monsters behind him in the shadows.
Bush is a problem, as he is a weak President who serves those masters
rather than serving the public good.
> It's probably the Republican National Committee that's actually
> running things nowadays. Once they asked the Bush family for a favor,
> now they've asked the McCain family for a favor. It's kind of like the
> Corleones. The Democratic machinery, a la Chicago in the Old Days, was
> the Keystone Cops crossed with petty larceny and a broken leg or two.
> The Republican machinery? Of Evil, learned much it has. We will
> probably get a Democratic President next, and he/she will be
> forgettable. The country is ripening for a messianic (but not
> necessarily religious) candidate out of left field.
Funny that the party of the religious right is also the party of he
evilest actions.
C
Coal Porter
Guest
On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:17:32 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>> Can it be true?
>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>>
>> >> Gig Miller wrote:
>> >>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
>> >>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even
>> >>> before???
>>
>> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that?
>> >> (I plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.) Bill "tech...BS"
>> >> S.
>>
>> > I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to
>> > nationalize the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least
>> > that was funny!
>>
>> Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
>>
>> > Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd
>> > run out of sand.
>>
>> Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
>
>You mean the Exxon tax? You pay more in windfall profits to oil
>companies than you do in taxes to the government when you buy a gallon
>of gas.
I know how much tax I pay on a gallon now: about 1/4th as much per
gallon as when bush was appointed(gas used to be about a 1 now it's 4,
for the math challenged). Since I'm using a little less gas, actually
a lot less than I was, you could say I've gotten a tax cut although
the total outlay has increased. Clearly some folks don't remember what
Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>> >>> [email protected] wrote:
>> >>>> Can it be true?
>> >>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijz1CdUj5fg&feature=related
>>
>> >> Gig Miller wrote:
>> >>> I'm not a big G.B. fan, but are you gonna post the silly stuff
>> >>> coming from Obama's mouth after he is elected??? or even
>> >>> before???
>>
>> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> Should I faint that he even labeled it "OT"? Or did you do that?
>> >> (I plonked ol' JB long ago for just this reason.) Bill "tech...BS"
>> >> S.
>>
>> > I thought it was going to be Maxine Waters threatening to
>> > nationalize the oil companies ( a la Chavez, Lenin, etc). At least
>> > that was funny!
>>
>> Ask and ye shall chuckle (and/or shudder):
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE
>>
>> > Run oil companies? If the US Government ran Saudi Arabia, they'd
>> > run out of sand.
>>
>> Think you pay enough taxes per gallon now? LOL
>
>You mean the Exxon tax? You pay more in windfall profits to oil
>companies than you do in taxes to the government when you buy a gallon
>of gas.
I know how much tax I pay on a gallon now: about 1/4th as much per
gallon as when bush was appointed(gas used to be about a 1 now it's 4,
for the math challenged). Since I'm using a little less gas, actually
a lot less than I was, you could say I've gotten a tax cut although
the total outlay has increased. Clearly some folks don't remember what
Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
S
still just me
Guest
On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:57:28 -0400, Coal Porter
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Clearly some folks don't remember what
>Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
Clearly some folks don't have a clue or are so ideologically
brainwashed (light rinse for most) that it is hopeless they will ever
recognize the reality of what goes on in this country. They'd prefer
to stay convinced that the Republican party is here to benefit them
and their country, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Clearly some folks don't remember what
>Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
Clearly some folks don't have a clue or are so ideologically
brainwashed (light rinse for most) that it is hopeless they will ever
recognize the reality of what goes on in this country. They'd prefer
to stay convinced that the Republican party is here to benefit them
and their country, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:57:28 -0400, Coal Porter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Clearly some folks don't remember what
>>Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
>
> Clearly some folks don't have a clue or are so ideologically
> brainwashed (light rinse for most) that it is hopeless they will ever
> recognize the reality of what goes on in this country. They'd prefer
> to stay convinced that the Republican party is here to benefit them
> and their country, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
Democrats. Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
that is in the process of ruining this country.
You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of power.
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 May 2008 23:57:28 -0400, Coal Porter
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Clearly some folks don't remember what
>>Enron did in California or else which they had a part in the fun.
>
> Clearly some folks don't have a clue or are so ideologically
> brainwashed (light rinse for most) that it is hopeless they will ever
> recognize the reality of what goes on in this country. They'd prefer
> to stay convinced that the Republican party is here to benefit them
> and their country, when nothing could be farther from the truth.
Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
Democrats. Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
that is in the process of ruining this country.
You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of power.
S
still just me
Guest
On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:33:46 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:
>Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
>serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
>Democrats.
I disagree. The Republican Party is (currently) here to benefit a very
small group of neo-cons who wish to use government money and
government policy to fill their own pockets (fascism, but without the
traditional dictatorial aspect in full force). The "party", the
millions of brainwashed minions, believe they party will benefit them
but it's only lip service.
The party rulers (neo-cons, not conservatives) give lip service to
ideas that are sacred to the larger, brainwashed crowd (the party
faithful) such as christian religious conservatism, fiscal
conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, etc. However, it's all
mostly show as they are neither fiscal conservatives or foreign policy
conservatives and the religious front is mostly ignored.
Note that they are willing to ignore their alleged principles such as
fiscal conservatism (witness records deficits), foreign policy
conservatism (conservatives don't police the world or invade other
countries except as a last resort, but look at what we have now), or
any other alleged principle. As another example, note that they pride
themselves on alleged patriotism but observe that they jettisoned that
with GWB (a war and duty dodger) and backed him to the fullest as long
as they had a tried and true facist-neocon behind him - Cheney. For
them, the (financial) goal is clear and any means justifies it.
>Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
>that is in the process of ruining this country.
I'm not sure where you think I suggested that the Democrats were any
"better" than the Republicans. I'd suggest you are guilty of looking
at everything and everyone through a traditional filter of "if you
don't like the Republicans, you must be a Democrat". You need to
broaden your perspective.
>You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of power.
Agreed. Unfortunately the puppet-child in there right now isn't much
of a man. McCain used to be a man, but he sold his spine to the
neo-cons this time around. Obama might be a man, but he's unproven.
Hillary is probably more of a man than any of them but she suffers
from a collection of dated ideals.
com> wrote:
>Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
>serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
>Democrats.
I disagree. The Republican Party is (currently) here to benefit a very
small group of neo-cons who wish to use government money and
government policy to fill their own pockets (fascism, but without the
traditional dictatorial aspect in full force). The "party", the
millions of brainwashed minions, believe they party will benefit them
but it's only lip service.
The party rulers (neo-cons, not conservatives) give lip service to
ideas that are sacred to the larger, brainwashed crowd (the party
faithful) such as christian religious conservatism, fiscal
conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, etc. However, it's all
mostly show as they are neither fiscal conservatives or foreign policy
conservatives and the religious front is mostly ignored.
Note that they are willing to ignore their alleged principles such as
fiscal conservatism (witness records deficits), foreign policy
conservatism (conservatives don't police the world or invade other
countries except as a last resort, but look at what we have now), or
any other alleged principle. As another example, note that they pride
themselves on alleged patriotism but observe that they jettisoned that
with GWB (a war and duty dodger) and backed him to the fullest as long
as they had a tried and true facist-neocon behind him - Cheney. For
them, the (financial) goal is clear and any means justifies it.
>Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
>that is in the process of ruining this country.
I'm not sure where you think I suggested that the Democrats were any
"better" than the Republicans. I'd suggest you are guilty of looking
at everything and everyone through a traditional filter of "if you
don't like the Republicans, you must be a Democrat". You need to
broaden your perspective.
>You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of power.
Agreed. Unfortunately the puppet-child in there right now isn't much
of a man. McCain used to be a man, but he sold his spine to the
neo-cons this time around. Obama might be a man, but he's unproven.
Hillary is probably more of a man than any of them but she suffers
from a collection of dated ideals.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:33:46 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
>>serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
>>Democrats.
>
> I disagree. The Republican Party is (currently) here to benefit a very
> small group of neo-cons who wish to use government money and
> government policy to fill their own pockets (fascism, but without the
> traditional dictatorial aspect in full force). The "party", the
> millions of brainwashed minions, believe they party will benefit them
> but it's only lip service.
And of course you know this because of your close affiliation with them? Oh,
that's right - you read Democrap propaganda and actually believe it.
> The party rulers (neo-cons, not conservatives) give lip service to
> ideas that are sacred to the larger, brainwashed crowd (the party
> faithful) such as christian religious conservatism, fiscal
> conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, etc. However, it's all
> mostly show as they are neither fiscal conservatives or foreign policy
> conservatives and the religious front is mostly ignored.
Left to its own devices government will always feed on itself. It was the
same thing in the 40's, 50's and 60's with the Democrats and it is the same
now with the Republicans. In neither case was this the fault of the average
Democrat or Republican who are generally honest Americans.
>>Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
>>that is in the process of ruining this country.
>
> I'm not sure where you think I suggested that the Democrats were any
> "better" than the Republicans.
If you focus your comments on the one without equal time for the other you
appear to be biased. By the way - every President has discovered that you
have to feed your party or they will desert you when you need them. This is
a problem with politics that is almost impossible to get rid of. Here's the
problem - people are not going to completely focus on getting someone
elected unless they personally profit from it. So we have to have at least
some small amount of party politics or we have no one that will want the
office.
>>You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of
>>power.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately the puppet-child in there right now isn't much
> of a man. McCain used to be a man, but he sold his spine to the
> neo-cons this time around. Obama might be a man, but he's unproven.
> Hillary is probably more of a man than any of them but she suffers
> from a collection of dated ideals.
I don't believe that Bush should ever have run. He simply wasn't the man for
the job. However, who else wants that job that we can trust now that a
President essentially destroys his life upon being elected?
McCain is an old-time Democrat and because the media put him in as a
Republican that party is in a horrible fix.
Obama is a pure socialist - maybe to the point of being a communist. The
people he knows and has confidence in is astonishing - weather underground
and the like.
Hillary is an unabashed liar and a fool who would destroy this country in a
second if she thought it would earn her some sort of approval from the
leftists.
So this election is a real scary one: Obama will try everything to turn this
country into a hopeless socialist mess. It is likely that he would cause
immense specialties to grew against his listings. Bad, bad, bad.
McCain is so stupid that he will allow the Democrats systems in the House
and Senate to do anything they want to do. Since they'll be lead by the nose
by the leftists the outcome will be horrible and leftist.
Hillary couldn't get elected in my opinion because too many people hate her.
But the truth is that she would probably be the LEAST worst President in
that group though the truth is that she would still be a horrible President
who would plan card after card in order to get re-elected next time through.
We're in real trouble this election - there are now controlling groups of
Democrats in the House and Senate. Any of those elected to President will be
for the insane spending of money that is destroying the American dollar.
This will also destroy the Social Security payments making them essentially
worthless and forcing "retired" people to work the rest of their lives.
Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
news
[email protected]...> On Wed, 28 May 2008 12:33:46 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
> com> wrote:
>
>>Too bad you don't understand democracy. The Republican party is here to
>>serve the Republicans. Just like the Democrat Party is here to serve
>>Democrats.
>
> I disagree. The Republican Party is (currently) here to benefit a very
> small group of neo-cons who wish to use government money and
> government policy to fill their own pockets (fascism, but without the
> traditional dictatorial aspect in full force). The "party", the
> millions of brainwashed minions, believe they party will benefit them
> but it's only lip service.
And of course you know this because of your close affiliation with them? Oh,
that's right - you read Democrap propaganda and actually believe it.
> The party rulers (neo-cons, not conservatives) give lip service to
> ideas that are sacred to the larger, brainwashed crowd (the party
> faithful) such as christian religious conservatism, fiscal
> conservatism, foreign policy conservatism, etc. However, it's all
> mostly show as they are neither fiscal conservatives or foreign policy
> conservatives and the religious front is mostly ignored.
Left to its own devices government will always feed on itself. It was the
same thing in the 40's, 50's and 60's with the Democrats and it is the same
now with the Republicans. In neither case was this the fault of the average
Democrat or Republican who are generally honest Americans.
>>Pretending that one is somehow superior to the other is insanity
>>that is in the process of ruining this country.
>
> I'm not sure where you think I suggested that the Democrats were any
> "better" than the Republicans.
If you focus your comments on the one without equal time for the other you
appear to be biased. By the way - every President has discovered that you
have to feed your party or they will desert you when you need them. This is
a problem with politics that is almost impossible to get rid of. Here's the
problem - people are not going to completely focus on getting someone
elected unless they personally profit from it. So we have to have at least
some small amount of party politics or we have no one that will want the
office.
>>You vote for the MAN who has the ideas you want in such a position of
>>power.
>
> Agreed. Unfortunately the puppet-child in there right now isn't much
> of a man. McCain used to be a man, but he sold his spine to the
> neo-cons this time around. Obama might be a man, but he's unproven.
> Hillary is probably more of a man than any of them but she suffers
> from a collection of dated ideals.
I don't believe that Bush should ever have run. He simply wasn't the man for
the job. However, who else wants that job that we can trust now that a
President essentially destroys his life upon being elected?
McCain is an old-time Democrat and because the media put him in as a
Republican that party is in a horrible fix.
Obama is a pure socialist - maybe to the point of being a communist. The
people he knows and has confidence in is astonishing - weather underground
and the like.
Hillary is an unabashed liar and a fool who would destroy this country in a
second if she thought it would earn her some sort of approval from the
leftists.
So this election is a real scary one: Obama will try everything to turn this
country into a hopeless socialist mess. It is likely that he would cause
immense specialties to grew against his listings. Bad, bad, bad.
McCain is so stupid that he will allow the Democrats systems in the House
and Senate to do anything they want to do. Since they'll be lead by the nose
by the leftists the outcome will be horrible and leftist.
Hillary couldn't get elected in my opinion because too many people hate her.
But the truth is that she would probably be the LEAST worst President in
that group though the truth is that she would still be a horrible President
who would plan card after card in order to get re-elected next time through.
We're in real trouble this election - there are now controlling groups of
Democrats in the House and Senate. Any of those elected to President will be
for the insane spending of money that is destroying the American dollar.
This will also destroy the Social Security payments making them essentially
worthless and forcing "retired" people to work the rest of their lives.
Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
E
Ed Pirrero
Guest
On May 30, 3:47 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews[email protected]...
>
> Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
You should have thought of that before you voted GOP the last 3
election cycles.
Obama communist? Even socialist? You are a complete idiot if you
actually believe that. AT NO POINT has he EVER advocated the State
take over any means of production. Ever.
Socialist? Yeah, right. If you ignore the actual meaning of the word
"socialist", maybe. On an absolute political scale, Obama is center
right. Only in America is this considered anything close to
socialism.
You need to step back from the Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage propaganda and
educate yourself on what positions actually occupy what spot on the
political scale. Not that I expect you do actually educate yourself -
you seem to be rather enamored of the folks who whisper sweet, feel-
good propaganda in your ear.
E.P.
> "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews
[email protected]...>
> Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
You should have thought of that before you voted GOP the last 3
election cycles.
Obama communist? Even socialist? You are a complete idiot if you
actually believe that. AT NO POINT has he EVER advocated the State
take over any means of production. Ever.
Socialist? Yeah, right. If you ignore the actual meaning of the word
"socialist", maybe. On an absolute political scale, Obama is center
right. Only in America is this considered anything close to
socialism.
You need to step back from the Hannity/Limbaugh/Savage propaganda and
educate yourself on what positions actually occupy what spot on the
political scale. Not that I expect you do actually educate yourself -
you seem to be rather enamored of the folks who whisper sweet, feel-
good propaganda in your ear.
E.P.
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
On May 30, 5:57 pm, Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 30, 3:47 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews[email protected]...
>
> > Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
>
> You should have thought of that before you voted GOP the last 3
> election cycles.
>
> Obama communist? Even socialist? You are a complete idiot if you
> actually believe that. AT NO POINT has he EVER advocated the State
> take over any means of production. Ever.
>
> Socialist? Yeah, right. If you ignore the actual meaning of the word
> "socialist", maybe. On an absolute political scale, Obama is center
> right. Only in America is this considered anything close to
> socialism.
The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
401K was worth something.-- Jay Beattie.
> On May 30, 3:47 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "still just me" <[email protected]> wrote in messagenews
[email protected]...>
> > Remember that you cannot pay for everything with nothing.
>
> You should have thought of that before you voted GOP the last 3
> election cycles.
>
> Obama communist? Even socialist? You are a complete idiot if you
> actually believe that. AT NO POINT has he EVER advocated the State
> take over any means of production. Ever.
>
> Socialist? Yeah, right. If you ignore the actual meaning of the word
> "socialist", maybe. On an absolute political scale, Obama is center
> right. Only in America is this considered anything close to
> socialism.
The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
401K was worth something.-- Jay Beattie.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:9330232d-a51a-4e61-a17f-187599813924@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
> country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
> United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
> were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
> 401K was worth something.
Is it just me or could it be that you don't seem to recall that the economy
was made infinitely worse with the increase in the public health insurance?
news:9330232d-a51a-4e61-a17f-187599813924@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
> The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
> country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
> United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
> were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
> 401K was worth something.
Is it just me or could it be that you don't seem to recall that the economy
was made infinitely worse with the increase in the public health insurance?
E
Ed Pirrero
Guest
On May 30, 8:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:9330232d-a51a-4e61-a17f-187599813924@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
> > country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
> > United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
> > were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
> > 401K was worth something.
>
> Is it just me or could it be that you don't seem to recall that the economy
> was made infinitely worse with the increase in the public health insurance?
It's just you. "Infinitely" worse? There is no industrialized nation
that even approached economic destruction over public health
insurance. Please describe, with figures, this economic destruction.
E.P.
> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:9330232d-a51a-4e61-a17f-187599813924@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The "socialist" countries (which, to the conservatives, is any
> > country with a health plan) seem to be doing a lot better than the
> > United States. To paraphrase Reagan, "are you better off now than you
> > were four years ago?" How about eight years ago -- back when your
> > 401K was worth something.
>
> Is it just me or could it be that you don't seem to recall that the economy
> was made infinitely worse with the increase in the public health insurance?
It's just you. "Infinitely" worse? There is no industrialized nation
that even approached economic destruction over public health
insurance. Please describe, with figures, this economic destruction.
E.P.
T
Tom Kunich
Guest
"Ed Pirrero" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:a905879c-e5b8-400e-a4d2-8e37c1635493@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's just you. "Infinitely" worse? There is no industrialized nation
> that even approached economic destruction over public health
> insurance. Please describe, with figures, this economic destruction.
http://brillig.com/debt_clock/
news:a905879c-e5b8-400e-a4d2-8e37c1635493@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> It's just you. "Infinitely" worse? There is no industrialized nation
> that even approached economic destruction over public health
> insurance. Please describe, with figures, this economic destruction.
http://brillig.com/debt_clock/
Similar threads
