Politically Incorrect.



Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tokugawa

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If Social Security is in trouble, why is our unelected pResident proposing ANOTHER tax cut for
> > the very wealthy, this time on corporate dividends. Why isn't the money being used to prevent
> > the bankruptcy of Social Security?
>
> Total tax income - about 1 trillion dollars. Proposed tax cuts? $2 billion.

Are you really stupid or do you just get all your information from Rush? The latest proposed Bush43
tax cuts will cost over $600 BILLION. Or are you saying that only $2 BILLION will be effective THIS
YEAR? As far as stimulus is concerned, that's a drop in the bucket. Meanwhile it shovels tons of
money to Bush's fat-cat friends like Enron's Ken Lay in future years. It must be nice to be worth
over $100 MILLION after looting your former company into bankruptcy. Ken Lay's political
contributions to the Bush family were the best investment he ever made.

> > Total Bush43 tax cuts enacted and proposed: $2 TRILLION. Total Bush43 spending to save Social
> > Security: $0.
>
> I suggest you cite that since the yearly tax take of the government is something like $2 trillion.

The TOTAL tax cuts over the next 10 years total $2 TRILLION, you moron.

> > Footnote: Supply-Side tax cuts do not work in the short run. Upon enactment in August, 1981, the
> > Reagan tax cut immediately induced a sharp recession, which peaked at double digit unemployment.
> > That's why the Republicans lost seats in the 1982 mid-term elections.
>
> Actual footnote: During the rein of Carter unemployment peaked

Carter never had double digit unemployment. Reagan did. You can't change history. Look it up. Stop
lying. The reason Carter lost to Reagan was that Reagan made a deal with the Iranians to delay the
release of the hostages until after Reagan became President. And they were freed the day Reagan was
inaugurated.

> > Footnote 2: Since enactment of the first Bush43 tax cut, over ONE MILLION American jobs have
> > been lost. Unemployment now exceeds 6% and is growing. Bush43's solution? More tax cuts! Forget
> > about balanced budgets. Bush43 is a Keynesian!
>
> ... when Reagan put in his tax cuts, despite your incorrect assertions, again business took off.

The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. The economy IMMEDIATELY went into a
tailspin. Again this is history, despite your lies to the contrary. By the way, it's the reason Rush
always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession, rather than 1981, when Reagan became
President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election results. Not pretty for the Republicans.

You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43 tax
cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you say DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
health insurance)?
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The Pomeranian <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > tokugawa wrote:
> > > How is the system failing if it pays 100% of the benefits that
it
> > > promises?
> >
> > Will you promise to pay me (tommorrow) 100% of a million dollars,
if I
> > give you 100% of $1 today? Do you see anything wrong with that?
>
> If Social Security is in trouble, why is our unelected pResident proposing ANOTHER tax cut for the
> very wealthy, this time on
corporate
> dividends. Why isn't the money being used to prevent the bankruptcy of Social Security?

Total tax income - about 1 trillion dollars. Proposed tax cuts? $2 billion. Yeah, that proposed 0.2%
of the tax budget could really come in handy for a government which gives more than that out to
neighboring countries in toilet paper each year.

> Total Bush43 tax cuts enacted and proposed: $2 TRILLION. Total
Bush43
> spending to save Social Security: $0.

I suggest you cite that since the yearly tax take of the government is something like $2 trillion.

> Footnote: Supply-Side tax cuts do not work in the short run. Upon enactment in August, 1981,
> the Reagan tax cut immediately induced a sharp recession, which peaked at double digit
> unemployment. That's
why
> the Republicans lost seats in the 1982 mid-term elections.

Actual footnote: During the rein of Carter unemployment peaked as did interest rates which were
almost 20%.

> Footnote 2: Since enactment of the first Bush43 tax cut, over ONE MILLION American jobs have been
> lost. Unemployment now exceeds 6%
and
> is growing. Bush43's solution? More tax cuts! Forget about balanced budgets. Bush43 is a
> Keynesian!

I hate to point this out but it was John F. Kennedy who brought in supply side economics. When it
was the Democrats idea it was the wonder of the universe and couldn't be questioned. When it was a
Republican idea it somehow ceased to work.

BTW, Kennedy's tax cuts returned many times their value in increase tax revenues through economic
growth and apparently you are too young to remember that when Reagan put in his tax cuts, despite
your incorrect assertions, again business took off. In fact, it was the Reagan revolution that
fueled the longest lasting period of unbroken business growth in American history. It took Clinton's
continued adjusting of the interest rates downward to finally kill the economy. As we all know, the
economy went out of control during the final year of the Clinton administration when interest rates
couldn't be lowered any more to fuel economic growth.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C2C3EE.BF385CD0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You can't really take someone seriously that uses a handle from one of = the most actively evil
regimes in history. In Tokugawa Japan even to bow = incorrectly could end up with the death of your
family unless you would = commit ritual suicide as an appology. The Tokugawas lasted for over 250 =
years by force of arms and a level of authoritarianism that would make = Joe Stalin, Mao Dse Dong
and Pol Pot seem like small time hoodlums. The = Meijis finally rose up in a wrathfull bloodletting
the put such an evil = empire permanently out of business. Unfortunately the people of Japan = were
so entrenched in the act of living in slavery that there was only = very slow improvement until
MacArthur changed the way government was = handled.

You can only imagine why this guy would use that name. "Cycling Joe" <[email protected]> wrote in
message = news:[email protected]... No one would bother with such garbage.

------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C2C3EE.BF385CD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type = content=3Dtext/html;charset=3DISO-8859-1> <META content=3D"MSHTML
6.00.2800.1106" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You can't really take someone seriously = that uses a=20 handle
from one of the most actively evil regimes in history. In = Tokugawa Japan=20 even to bow
incorrectly could end up with the death of your family = unless you=20 would commit ritual
suicide as an appology. The Tokugawas lasted for = over 250=20 years by force of arms and a
level of authoritarianism that would make = Joe=20 Stalin, Mao Dse Dong and Pol Pot seem like
small time hoodlums. The = Meijis=20 finally rose up in a wrathfull bloodletting the put such
an evil empire=20 permanently out of business. Unfortunately the people of Japan were so=20
entrenched in the act of living in slavery that there was only very slow =

improvement until MacArthur changed the way government was = handled.</FONT></DIV>
<DV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DVI><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You can only imagine why this guy would = use that=20
name.</FONT></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=20 style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT:
5px; = BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DVII>"Cycling Joe" <<A=20 href=3D"mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A>>
wrote = in message=20 <A=20
=
href=3D"news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]<= /A>...</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE
[email protected] = type=3D"cite"><PRE wrap=3D"">No one would bother
with such garbage.

</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0098_01C2C3EE.BF385CD0--
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"William R. Kelly" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The amazing thing is that most of the people talking about social security and socialized
> > medicine are educated and should be able
to
> > add two and two together and not get 137.
>
> You're portraying all this as good vs. evil. It is not. It is one
compromise
> vs. another.

You'll forgive me Mr. Kelly, for taking this a little personal since I made enough money to have
lived a comfortable life but was denied it by highwaymen voted into office who decreed that I should
life like I was born - in a ghetto in the lower classes.

> For instance, even though the top 10% pay 2/3 of the taxes, as you
state,
> the gap between the net worth of the top 10% and the bottom 50% is increasing.
>
> In the long run, that continued trend is not a good thing for any
society.

In the long run, stealing from the middle class to give to the rich and the poor isn't good for any
society either. A government that has the power to tax must both exercise that power to retain it
and must spent it's ill gotten gains in order to have a reason to demand more. Spending money in the
quantity that this government has necessitates buying very expensive things from very large
companies owned and operated by very rich people. Ergo, the government takes my money and gives it
to the rich and often for uses that I would never condone. Moreover half of the population pays
essentially no taxes and draw most of the government services. So I pay for them as well. The medium
tax of those in the upper 10% income bracket is some 22% but then most people in that bracket are
buying a house and can write off most of their income. I cannot. My total tax burden including
Federal, state and local taxes and all of the associated hidden taxes is approaching 50%.

> Of course, the problem is much more complicated than just the tax
code. Most
> people save very little money. For instance, you state of your money
that
> "taxes HAVE taken it all". Sorry, but that doesn't fly. Even in the
highest
> bracket, taxes take a high percentage, but one is not obligated to
spend
> every cent of what is left over.

Your take doesn't fly. Who the hell are you to tell me what my finances are? The fact is that in my
line of work there are seasonal layoffs. Every time the economy takes a dive the electronics
business swoons and lays off half of their force. That means that savings I put away are used up
paying for my expenses waiting for the economy to pick up again. That makes retirement savings grow
at a very slow rate no matter how much money you make.

Although my wages have gone up 60% in the last 15 years, my take home pay has only gone up 22%. I've
never been able to afford to buy a house and until 15 years ago I couldn't even get a new car. I
figured that I'd buy a sailboat so as to have someplace to live if all else fails. Then the
government bought out most of the provate marinas and ran berth rents through the ceiling and now I
can't sell the damned thing and I can't afford to keep it.

> BTW, I am in the highest bracket, so I am not one of the socialists
who wish
> to tax the hell out of the rich. It's much more complicated than
that unless
> one has a desire to be simpleminded and paint every issue as black
and
> white.

Oh, that's right, if one is offended by being held up at gun point, with a prison suit in the offing
for refusal to pay their taxes, that equates to simplemindedness. I really must remember that.
 
K

Kurgan Gringion

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Although my wages have gone up 60% in the last 15 years, my take home pay has only gone up 22%.
> I've never been able to afford to buy a house and until 15 years ago I couldn't even get a new
> car. I figured that I'd buy a sailboat so as to have someplace to live if all else fails. Then the
> government bought out most of the provate marinas and ran berth rents through the ceiling and now
> I can't sell the damned thing and I can't afford to keep it.

Everyone knows that boats are a money pit. If the marinas stayed in private hands, the rents would
go up also. The same type of debate goes on with rising rents in mobile home parks which are owned
by private entities. No one should complain, IMO. The landlords charge what the market will bear,
simple supply and demand. Don't like it? Move to a socialist state, this country is capitalist.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
If you have to lie to make a point you can't complain when someone puts up the facts:

Carter's Presidency was from 1977 to 1981

During that time the PRIME interest rate rose to 14% and personal loans were practically impossible
with rates sometimes reaching 24%. The impact on business during those years was stupendous and I
was one of the lucky people to have a job during that time.

Oh, from the Reagan Library page: "One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was the job
creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just seven years. And contrary to popular
mythology, most of those jobs paid at least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service sector jobs
equal low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are now admitting.
In fact, the overall job statistics show the Reagan expansion to be one of the best ever.

The job creation during the Reagan expansion was broad-based, spanning all sectors and providing
good wages throughout the expansion. And while wages rarely keep up with inflation, during the
Reagan expansion wages and inflation were very closely matched."
 
T

Tokugawa

Guest
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

Your non-sequitors do not change the basic facts:

The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. As Stockman said, "the pigs really got
greedy at the trough." Many major corporations were able to avoid all federal taxes by using the
newly written loopholes in the tax code. The economy IMMEDIATELY went into a tailspin. Unemployment
climbed to double digit levels, which did NOT occur during the Carter years. It was the worst
recession since the great depression. This is history, despite your lies to the contrary. By the
way, it's the reason Rush always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession, rather
than 1981, when Reagan became President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election results. Not
pretty for the Republicans.

In the short term, huge supply-side tax cuts in favor of the very wealthy (like Reagan's or Bush's)
HURT the economy. Kennedy's tax cut was miniscule in comparison. In the long term, the rich get an
even LARGER share of national income, the middle class and the poor get an even SMALLER share of
national income.

You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43 tax
cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you say DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
health insurance)?

Bush43's answer: more tax cuts for the very wealthy. More unemployment. More people without health
insurance of any kind. That's over 40 million Americans without health insurance and growing. Your
answer: do nothing.

You claim to care about white people without health insurance. You are a liar. You have no idea how
to help these people. Your assertion that black people get free health care is pure racism.

We pay twice the average per capita spending on health care than the rest of the industrialized
world. Yet we have LOWER average life expectancy, HIGHER rates of infant mortality, and DOUBLE the
rate of maternal deaths from childbirth.

Something is wrong with American health care, and all you do is repeat Rush spin points without any
idea how to improve things.

Free-market health care, where profit is more important than providing medical care, is the root of
our problem. Free-market health care has created incentives to medical providers to DENY necessary
medical services. Who benefits? Multi-millionaires like the Frists of Tennessee, whose HCA gamed the
system for over $1 BILLION in overcharges to the government, and who produced the new Republican
majority leader in the U.S. Senate.

> Oh, from the Reagan Library page: "One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was the
> job creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just seven years. And contrary to
> popular mythology, most of those jobs paid at least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service
> sector jobs equal low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are
> now admitting. In fact, the overall job statistics show the Reagan expansion to be one of the
> best ever.
>
> The job creation during the Reagan expansion was broad-based, spanning all sectors and providing
> good wages throughout the expansion. And while wages rarely keep up with inflation, during the
> Reagan expansion wages and inflation were very closely matched."
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
Take your lies elsewhere. I'm not reading your posts anymore.

"tokugawa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Your non-sequitors do not change the basic facts:
>
> The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. As
Stockman
> said, "the pigs really got greedy at the trough." Many major corporations were able to avoid all
> federal taxes by using the newly written loopholes in the tax code. The economy IMMEDIATELY went
into
> a tailspin. Unemployment climbed to double digit levels, which did
NOT
> occur during the Carter years. It was the worst recession since the great depression. This is
> history, despite your lies to the
contrary.
> By the way, it's the reason Rush always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession,
> rather than 1981, when Reagan became President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election
> results.
Not
> pretty for the Republicans.
>
> In the short term, huge supply-side tax cuts in favor of the very wealthy (like Reagan's or
> Bush's) HURT the economy. Kennedy's tax
cut
> was miniscule in comparison. In the long term, the rich get an even LARGER share of national
> income, the middle class and the poor get
an
> even SMALLER share of national income.
>
> You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43
> tax cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you
say
> DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
health
> insurance)?
>
> Bush43's answer: more tax cuts for the very wealthy. More unemployment. More people without health
> insurance of any kind.
That's
> over 40 million Americans without health insurance and growing. Your answer: do nothing.
>
> You claim to care about white people without health insurance. You
are
> a liar. You have no idea how to help these people. Your assertion
that
> black people get free health care is pure racism.
>
> We pay twice the average per capita spending on health care than the rest of the industrialized
> world. Yet we have LOWER average life expectancy, HIGHER rates of infant mortality, and DOUBLE the
> rate of maternal deaths from childbirth.
>
> Something is wrong with American health care, and all you do is
repeat
> Rush spin points without any idea how to improve things.
>
> Free-market health care, where profit is more important than
providing
> medical care, is the root of our problem. Free-market health care
has
> created incentives to medical providers to DENY necessary medical services. Who benefits?
> Multi-millionaires like the Frists of Tennessee, whose HCA gamed the system for over $1 BILLION
> in overcharges to the government, and who produced the new Republican majority leader in the
> U.S. Senate.
>
> > Oh, from the Reagan Library page: "One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was the
> > job creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just
seven
> > years. And contrary to popular mythology, most of those jobs paid
at
> > least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service sector jobs
equal
> > low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are now admitting. In
> > fact, the overall job statistics show
the
> > Reagan expansion to be one of the best ever.
> >
> > The job creation during the Reagan expansion was broad-based,
spanning
> > all sectors and providing good wages throughout the expansion. And while wages rarely keep up
> > with inflation, during the Reagan
expansion
> > wages and inflation were very closely matched."
 
T

Tokugawa

Guest
You complain about white people without health insurance and you claim to care about them, but it's
OK for them to have NO health insurance.

You loser.

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Take your lies elsewhere. I'm not reading your posts anymore.
>
> >
> > Your non-sequitors do not change the basic facts:
> >
> > The first Reagan tax cut went into effect in August 1981. As
> Stockman
> > said, "the pigs really got greedy at the trough." Many major corporations were able to avoid all
> > federal taxes by using the newly written loopholes in the tax code. The economy IMMEDIATELY went
> into
> > a tailspin. Unemployment climbed to double digit levels, which did
> NOT
> > occur during the Carter years. It was the worst recession since the great depression. This is
> > history, despite your lies to the
> contrary.
> > By the way, it's the reason Rush always starts his analysis in 1983, after the Reagan recession,
> > rather than 1981, when Reagan became President. Want proof? Look at the 1982 mid-term election
> > results.
> Not
> > pretty for the Republicans.
> >
> > In the short term, huge supply-side tax cuts in favor of the very wealthy (like Reagan's or
> > Bush's) HURT the economy. Kennedy's tax
> cut
> > was miniscule in comparison. In the long term, the rich get an even LARGER share of national
> > income, the middle class and the poor get
> an
> > even SMALLER share of national income.
> >
> > You also do not refute that over ONE MILLION American jobs have been lost since the first Bush43
> > tax cut. Can you say FAILURE? Can you
> say
> > DISASTER for all those American who lost their jobs (and their
> health
> > insurance)?
> >
> > Bush43's answer: more tax cuts for the very wealthy. More unemployment. More people without
> > health insurance of any kind.
> That's
> > over 40 million Americans without health insurance and growing. Your answer: do nothing.
> >
> > You claim to care about white people without health insurance. You
> are
> > a liar. You have no idea how to help these people. Your assertion
> that
> > black people get free health care is pure racism.
> >
> > We pay twice the average per capita spending on health care than the rest of the industrialized
> > world. Yet we have LOWER average life expectancy, HIGHER rates of infant mortality, and DOUBLE
> > the rate of maternal deaths from childbirth.
> >
> > Something is wrong with American health care, and all you do is
> repeat
> > Rush spin points without any idea how to improve things.
> >
> > Free-market health care, where profit is more important than
> providing
> > medical care, is the root of our problem. Free-market health care
> has
> > created incentives to medical providers to DENY necessary medical services. Who benefits?
> > Multi-millionaires like the Frists of Tennessee, whose HCA gamed the system for over $1 BILLION
> > in overcharges to the government, and who produced the new Republican majority leader in the
> > U.S. Senate.
> >
> > > Oh, from the Reagan Library page: "One of the strongest features of the Reagan expansion was
> > > the job creation numbers. Almost 20 million jobs were created in just
> seven
> > > years. And contrary to popular mythology, most of those jobs paid
> at
> > > least $10/hour. Part of that myth is that service sector jobs
> equal
> > > low paying jobs. However, that is not the case, as even critics of Reagan are now admitting.
> > > In fact, the overall job statistics show
> the
> > > Reagan expansion to be one of the best ever.
> > >
> > > The job creation during the Reagan expansion was broad-based,
> spanning
> > > all sectors and providing good wages throughout the expansion. And while wages rarely keep up
> > > with inflation, during the Reagan
> expansion
> > > wages and inflation were very closely matched."
 
S

Steve

Guest
On 1/26/03 7:30 PM, in article [email protected], "tokugawa"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You complain about white people without health insurance and you claim to care about them, but
> it's OK for them to have NO health insurance.
>
> You loser.
>

I totally disagree assclown..

I am going to go out on a non-pc limb here and say that the BIG problem is the group of people that
do not understand that there is a large group of people who do NOT have (whatever) because they are
LAZY, LOSERS, ETC. ETC. Even if that means going beyond just trying to vote DemoCrap so they can get
a large pay raise to just flip burgers at McDonalds buy a house and raise 3 kids........ And you
wonder why they can't afford health Insurance.

Why don't you ask all the 30, 40, 50 year olds you see doing (WHAT USED TO BE CONSIDERED...)
transitional jobs for high schoolers.

Some people are not willing to better themselves to get what we call the "American Dream"

The "American Dream" is NOT "What can the government do for me??"

It is "WHAT THE HELL CAN I DO FOR MYSELF"

There are those that NEED.............

And there are those that just TAKE...........
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
Come on Steve - that all was funny as hell, but you can be more authoritative by looking up the
facts and printing them. Then you too can get this Tokugawa character to call you a moron too. :)

"steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA59F08D.1EA5A%[email protected]...
> On 1/26/03 7:30 PM, in article [email protected], "tokugawa"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You complain about white people without health insurance and you
claim
> > to care about them, but it's OK for them to have NO health
insurance.
> >
> > You loser.
> >
>
> I totally disagree assclown..
>
> I am going to go out on a non-pc limb here and say that the BIG
problem is
> the group of people that do not understand that there is a large
group of
> people who do NOT have (whatever) because they are LAZY, LOSERS,
ETC. ETC.
> Even if that means going beyond just trying to vote DemoCrap so they
can get
> a large pay raise to just flip burgers at McDonalds buy a house and
raise 3
> kids........ And you wonder why they can't afford health Insurance.
>
> Why don't you ask all the 30, 40, 50 year olds you see doing (WHAT
USED TO
> BE CONSIDERED...) transitional jobs for high schoolers.
>
> Some people are not willing to better themselves to get what we call
the
> "American Dream"
>
> The "American Dream" is NOT "What can the government do for me??"
>
> It is "WHAT THE HELL CAN I DO FOR MYSELF"
>
> There are those that NEED.............
>
> And there are those that just TAKE...........
 
S

Steve

Guest
Funny??

More like LIFE


On 1/27/03 4:55 PM, in article [email protected], "Tom Kunich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Come on Steve - that all was funny as hell, but you can be more authoritative by looking up the
> facts and printing them. Then you too can get this Tokugawa character to call you a moron too. :)
>
> "steve" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:BA59F08D.1EA5A%[email protected]...
>> On 1/26/03 7:30 PM, in article [email protected], "tokugawa"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> You complain about white people without health insurance and you
> claim
>>> to care about them, but it's OK for them to have NO health
> insurance.
>>>
>>> You loser.
>>>
>>
>> I totally disagree assclown..
>>
>> I am going to go out on a non-pc limb here and say that the BIG
> problem is
>> the group of people that do not understand that there is a large
> group of
>> people who do NOT have (whatever) because they are LAZY, LOSERS,
> ETC. ETC.
>> Even if that means going beyond just trying to vote DemoCrap so they
> can get
>> a large pay raise to just flip burgers at McDonalds buy a house and
> raise 3
>> kids........ And you wonder why they can't afford health Insurance.
>>
>> Why don't you ask all the 30, 40, 50 year olds you see doing (WHAT
> USED TO
>> BE CONSIDERED...) transitional jobs for high schoolers.
>>
>> Some people are not willing to better themselves to get what we call
> the
>> "American Dream"
>>
>> The "American Dream" is NOT "What can the government do for me??"
>>
>> It is "WHAT THE HELL CAN I DO FOR MYSELF"
>>
>> There are those that NEED.............
>>
>> And there are those that just TAKE...........
>>
>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.