He Can't Take Another Bow By Peggy Noonan
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html -- Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
Re: Obamamessiah wins Nobel Bullshit Award
What's left? The 2010 Oscars for Barack and Michelle as best actor and actress? On Oct 9, 6:24 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, it was either him or Roman Polanski. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: When does it start raining bombs over there???]
The cost of oil extraction is very cheap in the Middle East. The USA also stopped buidling refineries.//The American consumer generally doesn't really care about where and how products come about until they prove toxic or impact the global enviornment. On Oct 1, 9:35 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: If we have so much of it why are we buying so much of it from the ME and helping to finance our enemies? Because the guys that you and your ilk keep voting in all over the country block, at every turn, our opportunities to use our own resources. One of the first things that President Clueless Obama did was to reverse the Presidential order allowing off shore drilling in the US. Jackass Clinton was the fool who blocked all drilling in the north of Alaska, a barren fuckin WASTELAND. CLEAN coal plants are NOT being prevented by the Democrats but by the coal industry that does not WANT to spend the money. LOL! You should read up on this a bit. Democrats have regulated into impossibility the building of clean burning coal plants, just like they did to oil refineries. I didn't say Dems have stopped anything about alternative energy. I asked what alternative energy was a plausible replacement for oil..or coal.or nuclear? If you've got something that can replace oil products in our cars without driving us broke, I'll be right on the line with you flipping the bird to big oil. And why can't we build nuke plants? They don't even pollute. France uses them. I get the feeling that the everything we do now is wrong crowd just hates humans, including themselves. On Oct 1, 6:20 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Zeb, If we have so much of it why are we buying so much of it from the ME and helping to finance our enemies? CLEAN coal plants are NOT being prevented by the Democrats but by the coal industry that does not WANT to spend the money. Please tell me exactly what Democrats have done to stop the developement of alternative energy. On Oct 1, 1:53 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: conservation Why should we conserve something we have plenty of , if we want itenergy? We have almost limitless supplies of oil, both discovered and yet to be discovered. We're just prevented from using it because of Democrats. We could build new clean coal fired electric plants, but they are prevented because of Democrats. We could have nearly limitless power from nuclear plants, just like France does, but we are prevented because of Democrats. AND renewable alternatives to oil. Such as? Name anything that we know of that will come close to replacing oil and that Democrats won't block. On Sep 30, 4:58 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: dick, Also wouldn't had we learned the lesson of the OPEC oil embargo in the early 70's and gotten serious about both conservation AND renewable alternatives to oil. WE, both Democratic AND Republication with a large amount of large to the public, have been behaving foolishly concerning our energy policies for at least 40 fucking years. Seems we NEVER learn to think long-term in this country. On Sep 30, 1:38 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: Which we wouldn't be if the Congress would permit drilling - Zero is OK to let Brazil drill right off our coast but our own companies can't. And the Dems won't allow drilling. Meanwhile none of the alternate energy sources they approve of can provide the energy needs of the country but that doesn't matter. Hollywood wrote: dick, Who knows? But if the entire Middle East blows up I guess we'll regret our insistence on remaining, to a large degree, dependent on their oil won't we? On Sep 30, 1:09 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/837f30a0-ad30-11de-9caf-00144feabdc0.html?n...- - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
If-
The government can arbitrarily pull the plug on clunkers, why should we believe that they will not also pull the plug on croakers if they have their way with healthcare in America? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: If-
I seem to miss all these government giveaways as I put on a new roof and bought a new car last year. How about a retroactive deduction for that? On Aug 21, 6:06�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: The government can arbitrarily pull the plug on clunkers, why should we believe that they will not also pull the plug on croakers if they have their way with healthcare in America? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Michelle Antoinette
I believe Michelle also has her own own make-up artist and probably also a hair-doer. Who does her nails? I think she needs a fashion adviser as I was in the minority of recent opinion about her jean shorts- most interviewed though she looked cool or hot, depending. Do these expenses cover elaborate menus of $100. Kobi beef, $24,000. date nights, a grand tour of Europe under the guise of politics/ diplomacy, choice of private schools for her children versus the courage to endure public education and mix with the unwashed and uncouth? What is the message of all the glamourous magazine covers of Michelle and Barack? How much time is scheduled for photo shoots? Is the purpose inspiration or egotism/narcissisim? Of course, this circus all began with the Kennedy's and probably is a Democratic disease while Republicans are doomed to the sex scandal apologias.//A friend recognized a former upper-classmate, Joan Kennedy, at the service for Eunice. She thought she looked like a wreak. On Aug 21, 5:25�am, Bruce Majors majors.br...@gmail.com wrote: First Lady Now Requires 26 Servants - costing $1,750,000 ANNUALLY to taxpayers Share �Tue at 9:59pm Michelle Obama requires more than twenty attendants - - more than any First Lady in U.S. History. The following is list of White House staff members assigned to the First Lady: The annual cost to taxpayers for such unprecedented attention is approximately $1,750,000 without taking into account the expense of the lavish benefit packages afforded to every attendant. 1 $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (*Chief Of Staff*) 2 $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (*Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects* For The First Lady) 3 $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (*Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary*) 4 $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (*Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications *for the First Lady) 5 $102,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (*Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff *to the First Lady) 6 $90,000 - Medina, David S. (*Deputy Chief Of Staff *to the First Lady) 7 $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (*Director and Press Secretary *to the First Lady) 8 $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (*Director of Scheduling and Advance *for the First Lady) 9 $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (*Deputy Director of Policy and Projects *for the First Lady) 10 $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (*Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary* ) 11 $65,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (*Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary *) 12 $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (*Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator *For The First Lady) 13 $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (*Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director* for the First Lady) 14 $60,000 - Lewis, Dana M. (*Special Assistant and Personal Aide* to the First Lady) 15 $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (*Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary* To The First Lady) 16 $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (*Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide* To The First Lady) 17 $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (*Associate Director of Correspondence* For The First Lady) 18 $45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (*Deputy Associate Director, Social Office*) 19 $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (*Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff* to the First Lady) 20 $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (*Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary*) 21 $36,000 - Bookey, Natalie (*Staff Assistant*) 22 $36,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (*Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence* for the First Lady) http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13827 http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=64113op=1view=allsubj=118683... TOTAL PERSONNEL HERE: 22 TOTAL ANNUAL SALARIES POSTED HERE: $1,600,700. LAURA BUSH'S STAFF: McBride, Anita B. Assistant to the president and chief of staff to the first lady $168,000.00 Harder, Cherie S. Special asistant to the president for domestic policy and director of project of the first lady $108,000.00 Niemiec, Sally M. Press secretary to the First Lady $90,000.00 Miller, Sonja M. Deputy chief of staff to the first lady $84,700.00 Ballard, Deanna M. Director of scheduling for the First Lady $75,000.00 Underwood, Carrie P. Deputy director of policy and projects for the First Lady $65,000.00 Wallace, Charity N. Director of advance for the First Lady $65,000.00 Marshall, Misty C. Director of correspondence for the first lady $59,700.00 Etter, Marisa L. Deputy director of scheduling for the First Lady $50,000.00 King, Kristin N. Deputy director of advance for the first lady $50,000.00 Lineweaver, Lindsey M. Special assistant and personal aide to the first lady $47,500.00 Rawson, Kimberly D. Executive assistant to the chief of staff to the First Lady $46,200.00 Donoghue , Tarah C. Deputy press secretary to the First Lady $43,000.00 Vogel, Campbell B. Deputy director of correspondence for
Re: The poor example of government control
Wasted in the Graveyard of Empires. Maybe the government should pick the wars it can win and spare those 20 year old boys an early grave or lifelong injuries. On Aug 18, 8:37�pm, SgtUSMC devildawg...@gmail.com wrote: I have always been amazed at our military. Twenty year-old boys maintain the world's most complicated equipment. It is like beholding a miracle to see how �this is done. Some people use this example to tell us the government can't do anything right, --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Obama's healthcare horror By Camille Paglia
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index1.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Obama's healthcare horror By Camille Paglia
Also check out Obama's Tone-Deaf Health Campaign By Dorothy Rabinowitz- Opinion- WSJ or Drudge, left column. On Aug 12, 4:52�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index1.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
'You Are Terrifying Us'- Voters send a message to Washington, and get an ugly response By Peggy Noonan
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
No mystery- she's conflicted between wanting Harry dead and still loving him plus foolish/self-destructive to tear up her passport and lose her papers- also abandoning her luggage. So she must hate Holly rather than beseech him for help. I often think of post WWII survivors and how terrible times must have been- even in Britain. No wonder our parents were silent.// Well, I like the genre- still think black and white photos are elegant though one I wasn't able to master- lighting problems.Mother took me to a matinee of The Postman Always Rings Twice when I was far too young- maybe early grades- but I never forgot it- the drop of Lana Turner's lipstick near the end. Yes- there is something hypnotic about film noir. Very seductive. On Aug 3, 8:03�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: The plot, like the woman, is a mystery. It's more a mastery of film noir, stark black and white, the story in all gray. Superb casting also - not just the characters, but the places - ending at the grave-site where the beautiful woman walks away. Add the music; one would think they grabbed a local zither player to save money on the score, and by sheer happenstance wound up with a work of genius. Makes my list of 10-Best. On Aug 3, 7:49�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I cheated-:-). I read the synopsis yesterday. Now, the ending seems doubly strange. Why didn't she stop and at least have a cigarette and what deal had she made and what would she face? Anyway, I forget plots easily so the film will still be new to me. My virtual world has been crippled by glitches and needed up-dates which my son will fix when he comes for a visit this month. I have been surviving on music and words in the meantime. On Aug 2, 7:47 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: An element of the perfect date, a movie you haven't seen! A really good one, too. And the mystery, strangers sitting in the theater of this virtual world. On Aug 2, 6:20 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Lovely scene- even though my video has a glitch- the pauses added to the tension- reminds me of The Sting alley scene with Redford and the hitwoman/waitress or some western gun duel.// Will have to rent this movie, d.b.- have not ever seen it. On Aug 1, 8:59 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3gBldyR4k On Aug 1, 8:44 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html...- - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
Even into the 40's- my aunt sent me a lot of signed 8x10's when she worked for the studios but who knows who really signed them? I liked my Minoltas. Don't have a digital. Good for you! Am afraid this is another dropped avocation- maybe not. Welcome to the theater, Hollywood! On Aug 4, 8:10�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Hey, I LOVE black white photography. I think the BW George Hurrell photos of the Hollywood stars in the 20's 30's are the best. I've done a lot of BW with my trusty Nikon, but just never mastered the lighting techniques. Too lazy to spend enough time in the studio practicising technique. Now I'm learning digital SLR photography, but still have the Nikon EM for BW. How'd I get in the movie? Film noir rocks, love Touch of Evil. On Aug 4, 5:06�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: No mystery- she's conflicted between wanting Harry dead and still loving him plus foolish/self-destructive to tear up her passport and lose her papers- also abandoning her luggage. So she must hate Holly rather than beseech him for help. I often think of post WWII survivors and how terrible times must have been- even in Britain. No wonder our parents were silent.// Well, I like the genre- still think black and white photos are elegant though one I wasn't able to master- lighting problems.Mother took me to a matinee of The Postman Always Rings Twice when I was far too young- maybe early grades- but I never forgot it- the drop of Lana Turner's lipstick near the end. Yes- there is something hypnotic about film noir. Very seductive. On Aug 3, 8:03 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: The plot, like the woman, is a mystery. It's more a mastery of film noir, stark black and white, the story in all gray. Superb casting also - not just the characters, but the places - ending at the grave-site where the beautiful woman walks away. Add the music; one would think they grabbed a local zither player to save money on the score, and by sheer happenstance wound up with a work of genius. Makes my list of 10-Best. On Aug 3, 7:49 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I cheated-:-). I read the synopsis yesterday. Now, the ending seems doubly strange. Why didn't she stop and at least have a cigarette and what deal had she made and what would she face? Anyway, I forget plots easily so the film will still be new to me. My virtual world has been crippled by glitches and needed up-dates which my son will fix when he comes for a visit this month. I have been surviving on music and words in the meantime. On Aug 2, 7:47 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: An element of the perfect date, a movie you haven't seen! A really good one, too. And the mystery, strangers sitting in the theater of this virtual world. On Aug 2, 6:20 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Lovely scene- even though my video has a glitch- the pauses added to the tension- reminds me of The Sting alley scene with Redford and the hitwoman/waitress or some western gun duel.// Will have to rent this movie, d.b.- have not ever seen it. On Aug 1, 8:59 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3gBldyR4k On Aug 1, 8:44 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
I don't know- maybe. I have 37 photos. 11 have a photographer's stamp on the back- not Hurell. I have Bogart- but in a tweed jacket, not a white dinner jacket like Rick. Three have lipstick penciled in by me- Jeanne Crain, June Allyson and Maragret O'Brien. Four, I have never heard of. Two of Jane Wyman and the signatures are different- oops!- so I figure some starlet-secretary did the signings To X- all the best- signature.// I'll think about the camera- not really crazy about digital photos- driver's license photos all look like criminals!// I request you be Rick, okay? Rick was a gentleman. :-) On Aug 4, 9:34�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, So, you are familiar with George Hurrell's work? Go ahead and take the leap into digital, you can start with one of the inexpensive point shoot digitals and later get into digital SLR's. What role do I get in your film? I wanna be John Dillenger or Rick in Casablanca On Aug 4, 9:23�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Even into the 40's- my aunt sent me a lot of signed 8x10's when she worked for the studios but who knows who really signed them? I liked my Minoltas. Don't have a digital. Good for you! �Am afraid this is another dropped avocation- maybe not. Welcome to the theater, Hollywood! On Aug 4, 8:10 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Hey, I LOVE black white photography. I think the BW George Hurrell photos of the Hollywood stars in the 20's 30's are the best. I've done a lot of BW with my trusty Nikon, but just never mastered the lighting techniques. Too lazy to spend enough time in the studio practicising technique. Now I'm learning digital SLR photography, but still have the Nikon EM for BW. How'd I get in the movie? Film noir rocks, love Touch of Evil. On Aug 4, 5:06 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: No mystery- she's conflicted between wanting Harry dead and still loving him plus foolish/self-destructive to tear up her passport and lose her papers- also abandoning her luggage. So she must hate Holly rather than beseech him for help. I often think of post WWII survivors and how terrible times must have been- even in Britain. No wonder our parents were silent.// Well, I like the genre- still think black and white photos are elegant though one I wasn't able to master- lighting problems.Mother took me to a matinee of The Postman Always Rings Twice when I was far too young- maybe early grades- but I never forgot it- the drop of Lana Turner's lipstick near the end. Yes- there is something hypnotic about film noir. Very seductive. On Aug 3, 8:03 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: The plot, like the woman, is a mystery. It's more a mastery of film noir, stark black and white, the story in all gray. Superb casting also - not just the characters, but the places - ending at the grave-site where the beautiful woman walks away. Add the music; one would think they grabbed a local zither player to save money on the score, and by sheer happenstance wound up with a work of genius. Makes my list of 10-Best. On Aug 3, 7:49 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I cheated-:-). I read the synopsis yesterday. Now, the ending seems doubly strange. Why didn't she stop and at least have a cigarette and what deal had she made and what would she face? Anyway, I forget plots easily so the film will still be new to me. My virtual world has been crippled by glitches and needed up-dates which my son will fix when he comes for a visit this month. I have been surviving on music and words in the meantime. On Aug 2, 7:47 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: An element of the perfect date, a movie you haven't seen! A really good one, too. And the mystery, strangers sitting in the theater of this virtual world. On Aug 2, 6:20 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Lovely scene- even though my video has a glitch- the pauses added to the tension- reminds me of The Sting alley scene with Redford and the hitwoman/waitress or some western gun duel.// Will have to rent this movie, d.b.- have not ever seen it. On Aug 1, 8:59 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3gBldyR4k On Aug 1, 8:44 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html... - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
I cheated-:-). I read the synopsis yesterday. Now, the ending seems doubly strange. Why didn't she stop and at least have a cigarette and what deal had she made and what would she face? Anyway, I forget plots easily so the film will still be new to me. My virtual world has been crippled by glitches and needed up-dates which my son will fix when he comes for a visit this month. I have been surviving on music and words in the meantime. On Aug 2, 7:47�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: An element of the perfect date, a movie you haven't seen! A really good one, too. And the mystery, strangers sitting in the theater of this virtual world. On Aug 2, 6:20�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Lovely scene- even though my video has a glitch- the pauses added to the tension- reminds me of The Sting alley scene with Redford and the hitwoman/waitress or some western gun duel.// Will have to rent this movie, d.b.- have not ever seen it. On Aug 1, 8:59 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3gBldyR4k On Aug 1, 8:44 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html...quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
Lovely scene- even though my video has a glitch- the pauses added to the tension- reminds me of The Sting alley scene with Redford and the hitwoman/waitress or some western gun duel.// Will have to rent this movie, d.b.- have not ever seen it. On Aug 1, 8:59�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es3gBldyR4k On Aug 1, 8:44�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Hey, Rig ( Co.), let's go to Martha's Vineyard!
Well, you made my day-dream date/day, d.b.! Hope my many smiles floated your way! Thank you. On Aug 1, 6:40�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: But first, a movie:http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/07/30/arts/20090802_NOIR_2.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Should the Obama's be allowed on Martha's Vineyard?
It also features a golf range of some sort. :-) On Jul 29, 4:16�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: [Q] - Obamas rent Republican's $20 million house on Martha's Vineyard: Barack Obama and his family will spend their August holiday on a $20 million (�12.5 million), 28-acre farm, complete with an apple orchard, private beach and even a basketball court to satisfy the president's sporting needs. --http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobam... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Are Men Obsolete?
Not yet! :-) Are Men Necessary?- Maureen Dowd, a spinster. Or Oprah, who has been fiddling with whites for over 20 years- supposedly an expert on women's issues who has never married or been a mother. On Jul 24, 7:43�am, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: �July 22, 2009 Are Men Obsolete? *By* *Robin of Berkeley* http://www.americanthinker.com/robin_of_berkeley/ When I snapped out of my left wing trancehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/letter_of_amends_from_a_recove...last year, I was lost in space. �I had no conservative friends and was clueless about web sites and books. I had heard something vaguely about Talk Radio. �So I scanned my AM dial and found Michael Savage. �(It took several months, and a chat with a rather bemused new friend, before I even realized there were other hosts as well.) Being a lifelong liberal, I'd never heard anybody like Savage in my life. He yelled; �he called people vermin. �He was unbridled masculinity, not the touchy feeling kind I was used to. �And he totally accepted himself: his moods, passion, temper. But what shocked me the most was his saying that men have become feminized. �I'd never been so offended. �Well, what's wrong with men being more feminine? �I shouted back at my radio. �Is there something wrong with femininity? � Men being way more in touch with their yin and less with their yang sounded good to me. I hadn't exactly been a big fan of masculinity. �Like any good feminist, ranting and raving about men were two of my favorite pastimes. � Men frightened me. �Testosterone fueled types like Michael Savage scared the bejeezus out of me. �I had good reasons, of course, given episodes of harassment and abuse. I couldn't tune Savage out because he was the only game in town (or so I thought). � Also, he was spot on about Obama, and his show was a rich tapestry of politics, philosophy, history, and religion. �So I stayed glued. What a difference a year makes. �Now I see Savage as a seer warning us of the dangers we were in for if men went the way of the dinosaur. � I had thought taming men's animal nature was a win-win for everybody. �Now I realize it was tampering with Mother Nature. And I have to wonder whether the feminization of men has been an unforeseen result of liberalism or some twisted scheme hatched by the left. �In some ways, it feels paranoid to even go there, like I've watched too many sci fi flicks. �But at the same time if Professor Bill Ayers and his ilk could plot infiltrating the schools with all things Marxist, why stop there? �Why not engineer a designer man who would go along with the liberal flow? Step one: �loosen men up through psychotherapy where they can get in touch with their inner child. � Have them exchange their arms for drums that they can pound in the woods with groups of brothers. �Teach them to reject logic and lead with their emotions. Idolize gayness, because after all, aren't gay men just XY versions of the superior women? �Degrade anything masculine. � Marginalize and vilify the macho types like Savage, by banning him from the U.K. Hike up the costs of SUV's and trucks, and squeeze men into deracinated cars like the Prius (notice how prissy even the name sounds?) Even better, herd them to work in buses and trains to save the planet (and control them). Ask the question, as Maureen Dowd did in her bestselling book, Are Men Necessary? �Answer in the negative by glorifying single mothers and supporting sperm donors. �Why bother with a bossy husband when the government can put moms on the dole? �And anyway, with gayness being the next big craze, there may be fewer straight men out there. On the horizon: �making the notion of gender arbitrary anyway. �Allow people free and easy access to sex change operations (I'll bet good money they will be readily available under ObamaCare.) *Allow children to choose their own sex. �(By the way, the fad is already in vogue and called gender neutrality. � Parents don't inform their child of his or her or its gender and let the little mutant choose one.)* * * *Even better, have your child be Bob one day and Becky the next, another hot trend called gender fluid. �It's already happening at a few San Francisco Bay Area schools, where bathrooms are unisex and children get to alter their gender as the mood strikes them.* *The piece de resistance of feminization: �wreck the economy. �If you want to cripple men, rob them of their life spring: their ability to provide for their family. �No worries: �the government will step in as a worthy substitute. �* * * *And the final stroke of genius: �disempower the true symbols of masculinity: �the military, police, and intelligence officers. �Investigate them, sue them, protest them with riots in the street. �Make them feel intimidated about doing their jobs. � Require them to attend plenty of sensitivity workshops. �* So, after decades of my going along like an
Re: Are Men Obsolete?
The whackiest women I know are the oldest child in a mostly female family. Women learn to love men more dearly by having sons. On Jul 24, 7:43�am, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: �July 22, 2009 Are Men Obsolete? *By* *Robin of Berkeley* http://www.americanthinker.com/robin_of_berkeley/ When I snapped out of my left wing trancehttp://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/letter_of_amends_from_a_recove...last year, I was lost in space. �I had no conservative friends and was clueless about web sites and books. I had heard something vaguely about Talk Radio. �So I scanned my AM dial and found Michael Savage. �(It took several months, and a chat with a rather bemused new friend, before I even realized there were other hosts as well.) Being a lifelong liberal, I'd never heard anybody like Savage in my life. He yelled; �he called people vermin. �He was unbridled masculinity, not the touchy feeling kind I was used to. �And he totally accepted himself: his moods, passion, temper. But what shocked me the most was his saying that men have become feminized. �I'd never been so offended. �Well, what's wrong with men being more feminine? �I shouted back at my radio. �Is there something wrong with femininity? � Men being way more in touch with their yin and less with their yang sounded good to me. I hadn't exactly been a big fan of masculinity. �Like any good feminist, ranting and raving about men were two of my favorite pastimes. � Men frightened me. �Testosterone fueled types like Michael Savage scared the bejeezus out of me. �I had good reasons, of course, given episodes of harassment and abuse. I couldn't tune Savage out because he was the only game in town (or so I thought). � Also, he was spot on about Obama, and his show was a rich tapestry of politics, philosophy, history, and religion. �So I stayed glued. What a difference a year makes. �Now I see Savage as a seer warning us of the dangers we were in for if men went the way of the dinosaur. � I had thought taming men's animal nature was a win-win for everybody. �Now I realize it was tampering with Mother Nature. And I have to wonder whether the feminization of men has been an unforeseen result of liberalism or some twisted scheme hatched by the left. �In some ways, it feels paranoid to even go there, like I've watched too many sci fi flicks. �But at the same time if Professor Bill Ayers and his ilk could plot infiltrating the schools with all things Marxist, why stop there? �Why not engineer a designer man who would go along with the liberal flow? Step one: �loosen men up through psychotherapy where they can get in touch with their inner child. � Have them exchange their arms for drums that they can pound in the woods with groups of brothers. �Teach them to reject logic and lead with their emotions. Idolize gayness, because after all, aren't gay men just XY versions of the superior women? �Degrade anything masculine. � Marginalize and vilify the macho types like Savage, by banning him from the U.K. Hike up the costs of SUV's and trucks, and squeeze men into deracinated cars like the Prius (notice how prissy even the name sounds?) Even better, herd them to work in buses and trains to save the planet (and control them). Ask the question, as Maureen Dowd did in her bestselling book, Are Men Necessary? �Answer in the negative by glorifying single mothers and supporting sperm donors. �Why bother with a bossy husband when the government can put moms on the dole? �And anyway, with gayness being the next big craze, there may be fewer straight men out there. On the horizon: �making the notion of gender arbitrary anyway. �Allow people free and easy access to sex change operations (I'll bet good money they will be readily available under ObamaCare.) *Allow children to choose their own sex. �(By the way, the fad is already in vogue and called gender neutrality. � Parents don't inform their child of his or her or its gender and let the little mutant choose one.)* * * *Even better, have your child be Bob one day and Becky the next, another hot trend called gender fluid. �It's already happening at a few San Francisco Bay Area schools, where bathrooms are unisex and children get to alter their gender as the mood strikes them.* *The piece de resistance of feminization: �wreck the economy. �If you want to cripple men, rob them of their life spring: their ability to provide for their family. �No worries: �the government will step in as a worthy substitute. �* * * *And the final stroke of genius: �disempower the true symbols of masculinity: �the military, police, and intelligence officers. �Investigate them, sue them, protest them with riots in the street. �Make them feel intimidated about doing their jobs. � Require them to attend plenty of sensitivity workshops. �* So, after decades of my going along like an automaton with the liberal program, I finally got it. � As people like Savage
Why We Must Ration Healthcare By Peter Singer
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html The health bill under consideration provides for abortion upon demand. Care for seniors and the elderly is looking more and more like government genocide. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women on the dole. I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide. On Jul 22, 1:12�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed she neither earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving woman, who may or may not be on the dole through some fault of her own... trhere are actually people in this position that are not there voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: � � � � Holly, � � � � � Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: perp, Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to society. On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: You miss the point entirely. �Raising children in a stable household that pays taxes positively contributes to society. �You seem to think it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of others. �I clearly distinguished between the two. On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? On Jul 20, 9:01 pm, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. --- Millions of stay at home moms have multiple kids from multiple fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. �Others do crack all day long. �Those stay at home moms who appear on a joint tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. �The others who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it shouldn't. On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24 am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
One gives and one takes. On Jul 22, 7:49�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I forgot nothing. You must have missed the phrase contribute financially to the nations pocketbook contained in my post. As to a link to female family members I may have the above phrase still counts. there is indeed similarity to a housewife and a welfare mom as far as the above phrase is concerned. If there is a difference in that narrow definition please be so kind as to explain it to me. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women on the dole. I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide. On Jul 22, 1:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed she neither earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving woman, who may or may not be on the dole through some fault of her own... trhere are actually people in this position that are not there voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. � On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Holly, Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: perp, Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to society. On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: You miss the point entirely. Raising children in a stable household that pays taxes positively contributes to society. You seem to think it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of others. I clearly distinguished between the two. On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? On Jul 20, 9:01 pm, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. --- Millions of stay at home moms have multiple kids from multiple fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. Others do crack all day long. Those stay at home moms who appear on a joint tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. The others who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it shouldn't. On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24 am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
She is most likely volunteering, donating food and clothing, paying taxes to support welfare programs and public education and safety, raising children that do not become criminals and wind up in prison ($$ $), paying her bills, etc. And she also contributes her children to the military and public service programs and doesn't expect the government to take care of her and her brood from cradle to grave. On Jul 22, 8:08�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what does the housewife put (in real money) into the nations pocketbook ?? nothing...the same amount as the welfare mom. they both take just from different sources. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:03 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: One gives and one takes. On Jul 22, 7:49 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I forgot nothing. You must have missed the phrase contribute financially to the nations pocketbook contained in my post. As to a link to female family members I may have the above phrase still counts. there is indeed similarity to a housewife and a welfare mom as far as the above phrase is concerned. If there is a difference in that narrow definition please be so kind as to explain it to me. � On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women on the dole. I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide. On Jul 22, 1:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed she neither earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving woman, who may or may not be on the dole through some fault of her own... trhere are actually people in this position that are not there voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Holly, Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: perp, Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to society. On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: You miss the point entirely. Raising children in a stable household that pays taxes positively contributes to society. You seem to think it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of others. I clearly distinguished between the two. On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? On Jul 20, 9:01 pm, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. --- Millions of stay at home moms have multiple kids from multiple fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. Others do crack all day long. Those stay at home moms who appear on a joint tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. The others who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it shouldn't. On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Not with his $24,000. date night and family tour to Europe- real people do not relate. Obama is all about Obama. Imagine a president- to- be getting his next book deal settled before he takes office. Some people need three memoirs. On Jul 22, 9:08�pm, studio tl...@hotmail.com wrote: On Jul 22, 6:40�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: studio, Good post. But if you read thru this thread the consensus among posting conservatives in general is that Turtle is onto the right idea. No surprise there. Thanks Holly. I admit I didn't read through the thread because I wasn't that interested in reading what dumb asses think...as a matter of fact, I've just been ignoring anything they say lately. Obama would be wise to also...but it doesn't look like he's come to that conclusion yet. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: FW: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
That is not true. Our country was set up as a Republic. On Jul 22, 6:47�pm, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: �The poor have the same voting rights because thats the way the Constitution, also George Washington and the other 'Founding Fathers' set this country up. �As a Democracey(misspelled) not a dictatorship. One vote per each one person. �sILVER bELLE Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? From: jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com studio, Good post. But if you read thru this thread the consensus among posting conservatives in general is that Turtle is onto the right idea. No surprise there. On Jul 22, 5:25 pm, studio tl...@hotmail.com wrote: On Jul 20, 10:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. 1. Inalienable rights don't come in degrees. 2. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (both democrats) will have more votes than anyone else. 3. The rich are the last ones to actually lay their lives on the line. It's the poor that allow them to even function in the first place. Turtle needs to rethink this. Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich? It already is, through advertising, persuasion, lies, corruption, and coercion. The really sad part is some people actually think these people may actually do something for them, when the opposite is much more likely to be true. _ NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. �Click here.http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072009- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Income from investments. On Jul 22, 9:45�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, How can she be paying income taxes if she does not have a job and therefore a taxable income? On Jul 22, 8:23�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: She is most likely volunteering, donating food and clothing, paying taxes to support welfare programs and public education and safety, raising children that do not become criminals and wind up in prison ($$ $), paying her bills, etc. And she also contributes her children to the military and public service programs and doesn't expect the government to take care of her and her brood from cradle to grave. On Jul 22, 8:08 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what does the housewife put (in real money) into the nations pocketbook ?? nothing...the same amount as the welfare mom. they both take just from different sources. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:03 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: One gives and one takes. On Jul 22, 7:49 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I forgot nothing. You must have missed the phrase contribute financially to the nations pocketbook contained in my post. As to a link to female family members I may have the above phrase still counts. there is indeed similarity to a housewife and a welfare mom as far as the above phrase is concerned. If there is a difference in that narrow definition please be so kind as to explain it to me. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women on the dole. I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide. On Jul 22, 1:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed she neither earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving woman, who may or may not be on the dole through some fault of her own... trhere are actually people in this position that are not there voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Holly, Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: perp, Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to society. On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: You miss the point entirely. Raising children in a stable household that pays taxes positively contributes to society. You seem to think it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of others. I clearly distinguished between the two. On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? On Jul 20, 9:01 pm, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. --- Millions of stay at home moms have multiple kids from multiple fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. Others do crack all day long. Those stay at home moms who appear on a joint tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. The others who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it shouldn't. On Jul 20, 12:46 pm, Hollywood
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Our Founding Fathers had no intention of creating a one person/one vote government hence the exclusion of women, slaves and riff-raff indentured servants who immigrated. On Jul 22, 9:46 pm, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: There is a DIFFERENCE between a Democracy' a Republic. CHINA calls itself a 'Republic' are THEY free people??? sILVER bELLE Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:42:24 -0700 Subject: Re: FW: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? From: rigs...@yahoo.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com That is not true. Our country was set up as a Republic. On Jul 22, 6:47 pm, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: The poor have the same voting rights because thats the way the Constitution, also George Washington and the other 'Founding Fathers' set this country up. As a Democracey(misspelled) not a dictatorship. One vote per each one person. sILVER bELLE Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? From: jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com studio, Good post. But if you read thru this thread the consensus among posting conservatives in general is that Turtle is onto the right idea. No surprise there. On Jul 22, 5:25 pm, studio tl...@hotmail.com wrote: On Jul 20, 10:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. 1. Inalienable rights don't come in degrees. 2. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (both democrats) will have more votes than anyone else. 3. The rich are the last ones to actually lay their lives on the line. It's the poor that allow them to even function in the first place. Turtle needs to rethink this. Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich? It already is, through advertising, persuasion, lies, corruption, and coercion. The really sad part is some people actually think these people may actually do something for them, when the opposite is much more likely to be true. _ NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here.http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072...Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - _ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out.http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
The bloody French Revolution had a huge impact on our Founding Fathers as well as the reality of the British, French and Spanish Empires. On Jul 22, 9:46 pm, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: There is a DIFFERENCE between a Democracy' a Republic. CHINA calls itself a 'Republic' are THEY free people??? sILVER bELLE Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:42:24 -0700 Subject: Re: FW: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? From: rigs...@yahoo.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com That is not true. Our country was set up as a Republic. On Jul 22, 6:47 pm, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: The poor have the same voting rights because thats the way the Constitution, also George Washington and the other 'Founding Fathers' set this country up. As a Democracey(misspelled) not a dictatorship. One vote per each one person. sILVER bELLE Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:40:28 -0700 Subject: Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? From: jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com studio, Good post. But if you read thru this thread the consensus among posting conservatives in general is that Turtle is onto the right idea. No surprise there. On Jul 22, 5:25 pm, studio tl...@hotmail.com wrote: On Jul 20, 10:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. 1. Inalienable rights don't come in degrees. 2. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (both democrats) will have more votes than anyone else. 3. The rich are the last ones to actually lay their lives on the line. It's the poor that allow them to even function in the first place. Turtle needs to rethink this. Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich? It already is, through advertising, persuasion, lies, corruption, and coercion. The really sad part is some people actually think these people may actually do something for them, when the opposite is much more likely to be true. _ NEW mobile Hotmail. Optimized for YOUR phone. Click here.http://windowslive.com/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_MB_new_hotmail_072...Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - _ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest sports videos. Check it out.http://www.windowslive.com/Online/Hotmail/Campaign/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
It's still income. I do my own taxes- in pen and ink- since I have had to correct CPAs in the past. :-) On Jul 22, 10:03�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Rigs, That would most likley be capital gains tax and NOT income tax. In fact if one has a good CPA quite possibly NO taxable income at all from some investments. On Jul 22, 9:50�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Income from investments. On Jul 22, 9:45 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, How can she be paying income taxes if she does not have a job and therefore a taxable income? On Jul 22, 8:23 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: She is most likely volunteering, donating food and clothing, paying taxes to support welfare programs and public education and safety, raising children that do not become criminals and wind up in prison ($$ $), paying her bills, etc. And she also contributes her children to the military and public service programs and doesn't expect the government to take care of her and her brood from cradle to grave. On Jul 22, 8:08 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: And just what does the housewife put (in real money) into the nations pocketbook ?? nothing...the same amount as the welfare mom. they both take just from different sources. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 7:03 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: One gives and one takes. On Jul 22, 7:49 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: I forgot nothing. You must have missed the phrase contribute financially to the nations pocketbook contained in my post. As to a link to female family members I may have the above phrase still counts. there is indeed similarity to a housewife and a welfare mom as far as the above phrase is concerned. If there is a difference in that narrow definition please be so kind as to explain it to me. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You are forgetting about men or women who inherit their wealth and property and therefore are taxpayers unless you are against inheritance, life insurance, wills and trusts, family businesses, etc. Motherhood/wifedom are not voluntary- they are the roles most women take on as part of their sexual identity. I realize the role of wife and mother have been terribly degraded in the years following women's liberation but I'm sure your mother, wife and daughter will understand your linking them to women on the dole. I'll try that phrase at the next tea party/luncheon and see where it goes. Don't show up if you value your hide. On Jul 22, 1:12 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: YES, but I think Holly's point that the housewife VOLUNTEERS to NOT contribute financially to the nations pocketbook. As a matter of fact she actually COSTS by filing jointly with her taxpaying husband. Regardless of her intrinsic value in keeping house, raising kids, keeping the wage earning, tax paying man in her life laid and fed she neither earns or pays and does so voluntarily... the SAME as the welfare recieving woman, who may or may not be on the dole through some fault of her own... trhere are actually people in this position that are not there voluntarily... as opposed to a housewife who is.. On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Holly, Contributing financially INCLUDES paying taxes !! On Jul 22, 11:28 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: perp, Thought we were only talking about contributing financially to society. On Jul 22, 10:19 am, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: You miss the point entirely. Raising children in a stable household that pays taxes positively contributes to society. You seem to think it's no different than a welfare sloth who lives their entire life without a job and births multiple illegitimate kids at the expense of others. I clearly distinguished between the two. On Jul 20, 11:29 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
The only movies I actually saw were True Grit and Rooster Cogburn and another late one with Maureen O'Hara- wife-taming type- but I have seen many clips- PBS had a program on him and another with him and John Huston, the director. Would love to see The Quiet Man- have just seen clips. Also- The Searchers (?)//Some actors capture the American spirit better than others. On Jul 20, 10:58�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Yep, and he's one of my favorite movie directors. You realize both those guys were/are just actors, right? The Duke did not REALLY win WWII and tame the wild west single-handedly. What was you favotite John Wayne movie? On Jul 20, 10:39�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Clint Eastwood will do- is he still breathing? On Jul 20, 10:31 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, I think John Wayne died in the late 70's. Why? On Jul 20, 10:18 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Watching public education decline in our nation. On the other hand considering the money that has fostered the girl across the street it is amazing she hasn't the etiquette to write a thank you note for a gift as a poster child of private education.//I no longer trust Somali cab drivers. Nor Latino cleaning ladies. Where is John Wayne? On Jul 20, 2:51 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: May I ask you where you developed this position and how it came about? On Jul 20, 1:28 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: All Muslims? On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Drunks can sober up but you will still be a moron tomorrow, sir. On Jul 21, 9:15�am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: The only thing worse than Rigsy's drunken drivel - morons responding to Rigsy's drunken drivel. �Seek help! CW - Original Message - From: RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com To: PoliticalForum PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:11 Subject: Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich? Rigsy - Seek help, quickly. On Jul 20, 9:18 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Watching public education decline in our nation. On the other hand considering the money that has fostered the girl across the street it is amazing she hasn't the etiquette to write a thank you note for a gift as a poster child of private education.//I no longer trust Somali cab drivers. Nor Latino cleaning ladies. Where is John Wayne? On Jul 20, 2:51 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: May I ask you where you developed this position and how it came about? On Jul 20, 1:28 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: All Muslims? On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
I think it was around the time of Andrew Jackson- not sure- when property restrictions were lifted for white males. It wasn't until the 20th C. that voting was opened to women and Blacks gained greater access. On Jul 21, 10:49�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: cheech, That idea was considered un-American even in the early19th century. On Jul 21, 10:44�am, cheech cheech...@fastmail.fm wrote: When the Poor discover they, by their votes, can transfer the wealth of others into their pockets, it's getting close to being all over. Sort of the condition we find ourselves in right now. Perhaps, only property owners should be allowed to vote. On Jul 20, 9:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
We should probably insist on educated voters rather than a round-up by the likes of ACORN, big money and influence, media bias, celebrity- type coverage. Those running for office promise the moon- once they are elected we are stuck with all the arm twisting tactics of the majority and minority rights are trampled. On Jul 21, 11:42�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: cheech, So, you are saying that the people do not have a right to choose what form of government they want? They don't have right under the Constituion to vote for whom they damn well please? You don't want free people voting in a manner you don't approve of? On Jul 21, 10:59�am, cheech cheech...@fastmail.fm wrote: How about people helping themselves to other's wealth by simply voting for socialists? On Jul 21, 10:49�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: cheech, That idea was considered un-American even in the early19th century. On Jul 21, 10:44�am, cheech cheech...@fastmail.fm wrote: When the Poor discover they, by their votes, can transfer the wealth of others into their pockets, it's getting close to being all over. Sort of the condition we find ourselves in right now. Perhaps, only property owners should be allowed to vote. On Jul 20, 9:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Hi, cheech! On Jul 21, 10:44�am, cheech cheech...@fastmail.fm wrote: When the Poor discover they, by their votes, can transfer the wealth of others into their pockets, it's getting close to being all over. Sort of the condition we find ourselves in right now. Perhaps, only property owners should be allowed to vote. On Jul 20, 9:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Good think the Republicans spotted this one
There is another provision for mandatory 5 year interviews with all nursing home residents which sounds spooky. This bill is a hoax and happily some congressmen are getting booed and heckled in their home districts. Voters who call their representives to oppose the bill are getting insulted as being unpatriotic.// If one is lucid, buy a Winnebago and move near a loving child rather than submit to Obama's plan for culling the population on his terms. On Jul 21, 5:18�pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: � Medicare qui tam: a health care bill surprise by Walter Olson http://overlawyered.com/author/walter-olson/ on July 17, 2009 Contacts on Capitol Hill inform me that Republicans yesterday managed to block a remarkable provision that had been slipped into the House leadership's 794-page health care bill just before it went to a House Ways Means markup session. If their description of the provision is accurate --- and my initial reading of the language gives me no reason to think it isn't --- it sounds as if they managed to (for the moment) hold off one of the more audacious and far-reaching trial lawyer power grabs seen on Capitol Hill in a while. For some time now the federal government has been intensifying its pursuit of what are sometimes known as Medicare liens against third party defendants (more http://www.pointoflaw.com/archives/2009/06/medicare-liens.php). In the simplest scenario --- not the only scenario, as we will see below --- someone is injured in, say, a car accident, and has the resulting medical bills paid by Medicare. They then sue and successfully obtain damages from the other driver. At this point Medicare (i.e. the government) is free to demand that the beneficiary hand over some or all of the settlement to cover the cost of the health care, but under some conditions it is also free to file its own action to recover the medical outlays directly from the negligent driver (who in some circumstances might even wind up paying for the same medical bills twice). It might do this if, for example, it does not expect to get a collectible judgment from the beneficiary. The newly added language in the Thursday morning version of the health bill (for those following along, it's Section 1620 on pp. 713-721) would greatly expand the scope of these suits against third parties, while doing something entirely new: allow freelance lawyers to file them /on behalf of the government/ --- without asking permission --- and collect rich bounties if they manage thereby to extract money from the defendants. Lawyers will recognize this as a /qui tam/ procedure, of the sort that has led to a growing body of litigation filed by freelance bounty-hunters against universities, defense contractors and others alleged to have overcharged the government. It gets worse. Language on p. 714 of the bill would permit the lawyers to file at least some sorts of Medicare recovery actions based on any relevant evidence, including but not limited to relevant statistical or epidemiological evidence, or by other similarly reliable means. This reads very much as if an attempt is being made to lay the groundwork for claims against new classes of defendants who might not be proved liable in an individual case but are responsible in a statistical sense. The best known such controversies are over whether suppliers of products such as alcohol, calorie-laden foods, or guns should be compelled to pay compensation for society-wide patterns of illness or injury. A few other highlights of the provision, pending analysis by persons more familiar with Social Security and Medicare law than myself: � � * A bit of language on p. 714, I am told, would remove a significant � � � barrier to litigation, namely a rule authorizing a lien action to � � � be filed on behalf of Medicare only after a previous judgment, � � � that is to say, only after the success of an earlier lawsuit (by � � � the injured party) establishing responsibility for the injury. � � * Language on p. 715 would double damages in cases of intentional � � � tort or other intentional wrongdoing. � � * P. 716 specifies that any person may bring the action, that is, � � � it need not be a lawyer representing the injured person or any � � � other injured person. � � * P. 717: the bounty would be a rich one, 30 percent plus expenses. � � � P. 719 provides that even if the federal government itself � � � intervenes and insists on taking over the lawsuit, the � � � bounty-hunter would still get a minimum of 20 percent, perhaps as � � � reward for winning the race to the courthouse. No one other than � � � the federal government could oust the first-to-file lawyer from � � � control of the action, so other private lawyers who lost the race � � � to the courthouse would be out of luck. Page 720 specifies that � � � the suit may be settled notwithstanding the objections of the � � � United States --- that
Re: about Turkey
Read Orham Pamuk. A wonderful writer. My Name is Red, most of Snow. Travelled there with my youngest son to Istanbul a couple of years ago and it was a great trip with very friendly Turks eager to converse and make me feel welcomed. Never thought I would go to Turkey as my Lebanese grandfather had killed a Turkish soldier during the Ottoman Empire and left for America plus the cruel image of Turks in history and films. But people are people, afterall. However, no more smoking like a Turk I read as your government leader sounds like Mayor Bloomberg of NY,NY. Very handsome men and women. Well behaved in public. The trams are too crowded. :-) Amazed to find how large a part apparel plays in their exports- never saw so many clothing/designer shops in my life! Tons of Russian shoppers. On Jul 21, 5:18�pm, ahmetyaman ahmet_yaman1...@hotmail.com wrote: dear friends, i am interested in how �people find about their views of Turkey's economics, political and culturel structure would you mind sharing what is your opinions about Turkey.. ( i have studied political sciences at Istanbul University...) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UPDATE: Bombshell-ll: Retired general, lieutenant colonel join reservist’s lawsuit over Obama's birth status
Or allow others to die in our name. My state lost several this last week- mere youths off to spread Democracy in a dangerous corrupt insane part of the world. Bring our troops home and let Islam be damned. On Jul 20, 7:39 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jul 19, 12:50 pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: What would make this extremely interesting is to see any foreign government to raise the same issue about a treaty matter, ANY treaty matter or refuse to accept a document or even message bearing Obamas signature. And filing America under banana republic. If nothing else, it adds a viable excuse. Like how can we hold others to a standard we ourselves refuse to meet. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
are On Jul 20, 1:20�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
It started at the beginning of Europe's discovery of the New World or later colonialization. Franklin bragged about getting the Eastern tribes drunk to defeat. On Jul 20, 12:21�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: How about gay marriage? �No tax implication there. I think the point you are making, and it is a good one, is that federal politicians have so interwoven social and financial matters for so long, that we assume they cannot be seperated. �The reality is that they have done it to divide us and to strengthen their positions and to deflect from their failures. �I am tired of their act!! On Jul 20, 11:12�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand you are just stirring the pot. Good to stimulate discussion and thinking. But what social issue would not have an economic impact on SOMEONE? And how and who would determine a particular issue was strictly a social issue? Thank you for the link. On Jul 20, 12:03�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I believe all US citizens should be eligible to vote. �I would not prefer to take that right away nor do I think it should be. �However, as you pointed out, all people vote for their personal financial advantage. �Maybe the answer is that each citizen gets one vote on social issues with no financial impact, but that tax issues and spending issues are weighted toward an individual contribution to society as measured by taxes paid. �Just stirring the pot .. BTW, attached is a link to the Fair Tax. �Read it with an open mind and think specifically about the capacity to control the politicians. The two groups most opposed to the proposal are long-term politicians and PACs. �As you often point out, all you have to do is follow the money to understand why they are opposed. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer On Jul 20, 10:46�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? �Does he contribute to the economy enough to deserve a vote? Take note you said contribute to the economy as the deciding factor NOT contribute to the safety or stability. How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem reasonable to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. �That would be strong incentive to get of their butts and get a job. On Jul 20, 8:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
For every slave brought over by Britain there were indentured Irish and Northern Europeans. On Jul 20, 12:21�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: How about gay marriage? �No tax implication there. I think the point you are making, and it is a good one, is that federal politicians have so interwoven social and financial matters for so long, that we assume they cannot be seperated. �The reality is that they have done it to divide us and to strengthen their positions and to deflect from their failures. �I am tired of their act!! On Jul 20, 11:12�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand you are just stirring the pot. Good to stimulate discussion and thinking. But what social issue would not have an economic impact on SOMEONE? And how and who would determine a particular issue was strictly a social issue? Thank you for the link. On Jul 20, 12:03�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I believe all US citizens should be eligible to vote. �I would not prefer to take that right away nor do I think it should be. �However, as you pointed out, all people vote for their personal financial advantage. �Maybe the answer is that each citizen gets one vote on social issues with no financial impact, but that tax issues and spending issues are weighted toward an individual contribution to society as measured by taxes paid. �Just stirring the pot .. BTW, attached is a link to the Fair Tax. �Read it with an open mind and think specifically about the capacity to control the politicians. The two groups most opposed to the proposal are long-term politicians and PACs. �As you often point out, all you have to do is follow the money to understand why they are opposed. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer On Jul 20, 10:46�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? �Does he contribute to the economy enough to deserve a vote? Take note you said contribute to the economy as the deciding factor NOT contribute to the safety or stability. How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem reasonable to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. �That would be strong incentive to get of their butts and get a job. On Jul 20, 8:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Given the violent and brutal behavior of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America what do you see as a common human bond with these savages? On Jul 20, 12:21�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: How about gay marriage? �No tax implication there. I think the point you are making, and it is a good one, is that federal politicians have so interwoven social and financial matters for so long, that we assume they cannot be seperated. �The reality is that they have done it to divide us and to strengthen their positions and to deflect from their failures. �I am tired of their act!! On Jul 20, 11:12�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand you are just stirring the pot. Good to stimulate discussion and thinking. But what social issue would not have an economic impact on SOMEONE? And how and who would determine a particular issue was strictly a social issue? Thank you for the link. On Jul 20, 12:03�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I believe all US citizens should be eligible to vote. �I would not prefer to take that right away nor do I think it should be. �However, as you pointed out, all people vote for their personal financial advantage. �Maybe the answer is that each citizen gets one vote on social issues with no financial impact, but that tax issues and spending issues are weighted toward an individual contribution to society as measured by taxes paid. �Just stirring the pot .. BTW, attached is a link to the Fair Tax. �Read it with an open mind and think specifically about the capacity to control the politicians. The two groups most opposed to the proposal are long-term politicians and PACs. �As you often point out, all you have to do is follow the money to understand why they are opposed. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer On Jul 20, 10:46�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? �Does he contribute to the economy enough to deserve a vote? Take note you said contribute to the economy as the deciding factor NOT contribute to the safety or stability. How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem reasonable to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. �That would be strong incentive to get of their butts and get a job. On Jul 20, 8:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
On Jul 20, 1:46�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers �half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers �half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Venus. :-) On Jul 20, 1:50�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us are? Tell me, exactly what planet are you on right now? On Jul 20, 1:47�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Given the violent and brutal behavior of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America what do you see as a common human bond with these savages? On Jul 20, 12:21 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: How about gay marriage? No tax implication there. I think the point you are making, and it is a good one, is that federal politicians have so interwoven social and financial matters for so long, that we assume they cannot be seperated. The reality is that they have done it to divide us and to strengthen their positions and to deflect from their failures. I am tired of their act!! On Jul 20, 11:12 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand you are just stirring the pot. Good to stimulate discussion and thinking. But what social issue would not have an economic impact on SOMEONE? And how and who would determine a particular issue was strictly a social issue? Thank you for the link. On Jul 20, 12:03 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I believe all US citizens should be eligible to vote. I would not prefer to take that right away nor do I think it should be. However, as you pointed out, all people vote for their personal financial advantage. Maybe the answer is that each citizen gets one vote on social issues with no financial impact, but that tax issues and spending issues are weighted toward an individual contribution to society as measured by taxes paid. Just stirring the pot .. BTW, attached is a link to the Fair Tax. Read it with an open mind and think specifically about the capacity to control the politicians. The two groups most opposed to the proposal are long-term politicians and PACs. As you often point out, all you have to do is follow the money to understand why they are opposed. http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer On Jul 20, 10:46 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24 am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? Does he contribute to the economy enough to deserve a vote? Take note you said contribute to the economy as the deciding factor NOT contribute to the safety or stability. How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25 am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and effectively do not contribute
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Yes, On Jul 20, 2:25�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: All Muslims? On Jul 20, 1:22�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Because you can't help yourself. You are pathetic. On Jul 20, 2:26�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. What does that have to do with my post? What does it have to do with your imaginative and ever-changing story? For that matter, WHY am I even talking to you? On Jul 20, 2:22�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Watching public education decline in our nation. On the other hand considering the money that has fostered the girl across the street it is amazing she hasn't the etiquette to write a thank you note for a gift as a poster child of private education.//I no longer trust Somali cab drivers. Nor Latino cleaning ladies. Where is John Wayne? On Jul 20, 2:51�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: May I ask you where you developed this position and how it came about? On Jul 20, 1:28�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: All Muslims? On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
A stay at home mom has a six figure worth per annum. Declined. On Jul 20, 10:29�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Perp, Why yes, if you are a full time stay-at-home-mom by difinition you would not have a paying job. Isn't that what I said? On Jul 20, 9:01�pm, Perplexed openlyincogn...@yahoo.com wrote: And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. --- Millions of stay at home moms have multiple kids from multiple fathers and live in subsidized housing and don't have jobs. �Others do crack all day long. �Those stay at home moms who appear on a joint tax return where taxes are paid should be able to vote. �The others who don't contribute to society but rather leech off of it shouldn't. On Jul 20, 12:46�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, I understand that. I was simply pointing out some obvious problems with it. So, a college student working part time while going to school would not get a vote? The under-employed? And don't forget the stay-at-home- mom. And the rich have the greatest incentive to vote for laws that will increase their stock dividends at the expense of the workers. Endless war? Great idea, I've got lots of stock in the defense industry sector. Won't be my kids doing the fighting dying. Increase minimum wage? Fuck that, will reduce profts of companies I have stock in. Clean air, clean water, safe working conditions? Fuck that, it will increase the cost of doing business. Core problem here is that EVERYONE is thinking in the terms of short- term self interest. On Jul 20, 11:24�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: I was simply tossing out an alternative interpretation. �But, I guess if someone is contributing to Social Security, they get a pass. �If they are below the full time minimum wage level, they should not. �My real point was that those who are a net drag on society are the ones who have the greatest incentive to vote for welfare programs that raise taxes, decrease our competitiveness and endanger future generations. �The questions you asked are just as reasonable as the one I raised. �But, make no mistake about it, our founding fathers feared that the economic populism resulting from pure democracy, even with the checks and balances they put in place, would be our biggest risk to long-term success as a nation. �We are living their worst fears at the present. On Jul 20, 8:47�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Richard, Ok,you have a right to your opinion. Who gets to define temporarily? Who gets to define what a more appropiate ratio would be? The disabled would get no vote? How much in taxes do you think a Pfc. in the Marines pays? �Does he contribute to the economy enough to deserve a vote? Take note you said contribute to the economy as the deciding factor NOT contribute to the safety or stability. How about a stay-at-home-mom, raising her family? No vote for her? On Jul 20, 9:25�am, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: The ratio seems excessive, but for those who do not pay taxes and effectively do not contribute to the economy, it does seem reasonable to temporarily withhold their voting privilege. �That would be strong incentive to get of their butts and get a job. On Jul 20, 8:15�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Why Should The Poor Have Voting Parity With The Rich?
Clint Eastwood will do- is he still breathing? On Jul 20, 10:31�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, I think John Wayne died in the late 70's. Why? On Jul 20, 10:18�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Watching public education decline in our nation. On the other hand considering the money that has fostered the girl across the street it is amazing she hasn't the etiquette to write a thank you note for a gift as a poster child of private education.//I no longer trust Somali cab drivers. Nor Latino cleaning ladies. Where is John Wayne? On Jul 20, 2:51 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: May I ask you where you developed this position and how it came about? On Jul 20, 1:28 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Yes, On Jul 20, 2:25 pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com wrote: All Muslims? On Jul 20, 1:22 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: I happen to believe Muslims see themselves outside of the sphere of governments. On Jul 20, 2:17 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Oh, so NOW they were NOT sent back to Somalia by the U.S. govt. they were LURED back. You can't even keep your own nonsense straight. On Jul 20, 2:08 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: They were lured back to Somalia by their mosques, They are dying in Somalia. On Jul 20, 2:02 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, That's nice. Tell me genius, if they were BORN in the U.S, how could they be SENT BACK to Somalia. If one is BORN in the U.S. that would make them a U.S. citizen, if convicted of a crime here they would be punished/imprisoned HERE. Tell me why a U.S. citizen would be SENT BACK to Somalia. Explain to me how that would work. How many moons are there on your planet? On Jul 20, 1:54 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Well my city has managed to send several American born Muslims back to Somalia al queda. On Jul 20, 1:46 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, No idea in the world what the hell you are talking about and how it might relate to my post. No idea in the world how a woman can be checking me out at the Walgreen's counter and simultaneously killing our soldiers half-way around the world. How's that work? Are you trying to tell me that some chick working at Walgreen's is directly responsible for the actions of some asshole on the other side of the world because they both claim to be members of the same religion? WTF? On Jul 20, 1:20 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Then ask a Walgreen's or Target manager why he/she is hiring scarved Muslim women who are killing our military and why you should continue to do business with them. On Jul 20, 11:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, We're not a Democracy, never have been. We're a representative Republic based on Democracy. So don't vote if you consider your vote meaningless, On Jul 20, 11:19 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Our Republic was designed by the rich and propertied. The Senate was probably conceived as a counter to the French Revolution. Voting rights began opening up under Andrew Jackson to white males.Given the fortunes needed to run present elections, where do you think we can claim to be a Democracy? Add to that, the celebrity factor introduced by the Kennedys and you have an oligarchy. I consider my vote meaningless. On Jul 20, 9:15 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: On another forum a certain conservative poster who goes by the nic of The Supreme Turtle pretty much openly posed that question. I quote his words if you pay 100k in taxes you should have ten times the votes of someone who pays 10K End quote. Well , I made my feelings about such a statement pretty clear but am most curious about what posters here think of that. Fire away folks, what do you think? Should the U.S. be ruled by the rich?- Hide quoted text
Re: Religion
Christ is one thing- Christianity quite another for once Constantine organized a political-military-religious force it was on the warpath and likely inspired Islam to do the same. I think you know your history so I will not recount the centuries of Christian bloodbaths. On Jul 18, 5:56�am, Jim Willis conservativespringfi...@gmail.com wrote: One distinction; Muhammad went into the dessert, hashish pipe in hand and amid a cloud of smoke plagiarized much of the old testament, only changing it enough to qualify as an illiterate cultist. He then set about murdering, raping and instituting pedophilia as a construct, a tenet of a religion he had fabricated. One question? How many people did Jesus kill, how many he he rape? You proffer your radical Christianity, ...so do I. Doing so, as you know means to strive to be Christ-like. And...an acceptance of divinity only through our savior. IF...you heartily believe that, how can you ever be accepting of a murdering cult that ignores Christ? I'm just saying... On Jul 18, 3:54�am, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: If by muzzie you mean Muslim, well Christianity and Islam share one unfortunate characteristic: The majority of their followers have a penchant for telling everyone else who God likes and whom he doesn't. As if they know. I'm a Radical Christian. Christ is my wayshower but I believe it would be extremely arrogant of me to go around telling others that they're not good enough for God - regardless of whether they are Buddhist, Muslims, turtle worshippers or whatever. The example I follow says Who am I to Judge? On Jul 17, 9:25�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds like muzzieshit to me. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Frederick frederickshel...@gmail.comwrote: [image: Religion.JPG] �Religion.JPG 158KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Religion
Islam does not ignore Christ- it distorts him. Judaism neither ignores Christ but refused to give up their tenets of belief over several issues. On Jul 18, 5:56�am, Jim Willis conservativespringfi...@gmail.com wrote: One distinction; Muhammad went into the dessert, hashish pipe in hand and amid a cloud of smoke plagiarized much of the old testament, only changing it enough to qualify as an illiterate cultist. He then set about murdering, raping and instituting pedophilia as a construct, a tenet of a religion he had fabricated. One question? How many people did Jesus kill, how many he he rape? You proffer your radical Christianity, ...so do I. Doing so, as you know means to strive to be Christ-like. And...an acceptance of divinity only through our savior. IF...you heartily believe that, how can you ever be accepting of a murdering cult that ignores Christ? I'm just saying... On Jul 18, 3:54�am, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: If by muzzie you mean Muslim, well Christianity and Islam share one unfortunate characteristic: The majority of their followers have a penchant for telling everyone else who God likes and whom he doesn't. As if they know. I'm a Radical Christian. Christ is my wayshower but I believe it would be extremely arrogant of me to go around telling others that they're not good enough for God - regardless of whether they are Buddhist, Muslims, turtle worshippers or whatever. The example I follow says Who am I to Judge? On Jul 17, 9:25�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: Sounds like muzzieshit to me. On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Frederick frederickshel...@gmail.comwrote: [image: Religion.JPG] �Religion.JPG 158KViewDownload- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Paths of Glory. A film. Rent it. On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: D.B. No, you are wrong. The military can revoke ANY order for ANY reason or no reason at all. If one has the authority to issue an order than same person/command has the authority to rescind or nullify that same order. On Jul 15, 9:35 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By revoking a standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the natural born citizen rule as it pertains to the president - as a Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; Take the remedy up with the legislative. More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of standing. The military certainly has standing, although they're now beyond the court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the Constitution. On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b. Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, etc. How did he get those? On Jul 15, 8:15 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or request orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian appointees are out. On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b, The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the orders of a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his rank/ office would be illegal. On Jul 15, 7:27 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office. His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders. We won! We won before we even arrived, she said with excitement. It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order! She continued, They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=104009-Hidequotedtext - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Good grief! We agree on something! Of course we are not WW1 France, however there is a universality in great art that taps human character and motives beyond the historical time frame. On Jul 17, 8:12 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Wonderful movie, seen it a number of times. Do I really need to tell you that this is not France and not WWI? By the military I of course meant the military of the United States and I meant now. I'm sorry if that was not clear. On Jul 17, 6:32 am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Paths of Glory. A film. Rent it. On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: D.B. No, you are wrong. The military can revoke ANY order for ANY reason or no reason at all. If one has the authority to issue an order than same person/command has the authority to rescind or nullify that same order. On Jul 15, 9:35 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By revoking a standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the natural born citizen rule as it pertains to the president - as a Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; Take the remedy up with the legislative. More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of standing. The military certainly has standing, although they're now beyond the court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the Constitution. On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b. Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, etc. How did he get those? On Jul 15, 8:15 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or request orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian appointees are out. On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b, The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the orders of a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his rank/ office would be illegal. On Jul 15, 7:27 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his eligibility for office. His attorney, Orly Taitz, confirmed to WND the military has rescinded his impending deployment orders. We won! We won before we even arrived, she said with excitement. It means that the military has nothing to show for Obama. It means that the military has directly responded by saying Obama is illegitimate – and they cannot fight it. Therefore, they are revoking the order! She continued, They just said, 'Order revoked.' No explanation. No reasons – just revoked. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.viewpageId=104009-Hidequotedtext- - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Orders have become murky since the USA use of contractors- many times former military who can earn 6 figures rather than 5. The new Hessians. On Jul 16, 9:16 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from their superior officer You are missing a word from the UCMJ. LAWFUL. Every soldier and sailor is required to obey a LAWFUL order. Please try to be a little accurate. Regardless of where the order is initiated the CIC (not congress, not generals, not the joint chiefs) stands as the authority to issue it . As to the being fired there is a whistleblower law that will reward him greatly. The soldier in 2006 whether or not the war was legal, he had legal orders from legal authority. And yes, the beauty of the whole thing is that the Army brass stayed out of the mix by NOT issuing reasons and laid it directly on Obama by saying nothing On Jul 15, 7:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from their superior officer and I guarantee that someone between Obama and this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they had this guy's sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of going through all the legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. Guess what kind of company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes pretty good money too! Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in advance... Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006 because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was illegal, all the Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted how a soldiers duty should never be interefered with by politics and Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that, if that were allowed, half our armed forces could refuse to fight at any given moment etc... Funny how their opinion of a soldiers' duty has changed (rather hypocritically) now that the politics are on the other foot... On Jul 15, 7:35 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By revoking a standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the natural born citizen rule as it pertains to the president - as a Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; Take the remedy up with the legislative. More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of standing. The military certainly has standing, although they're now beyond the court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the Constitution. On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b. Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, etc. How did he get those? On Jul 15, 8:15 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or request orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian appointees are out. On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b, The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the orders of a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his rank/ office would be illegal. On Jul 15, 7:27 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve major from Florida scheduled to report for deployment to Afghanistan within days has had his military orders revoked after arguing he should not be required to serve under a president who has not proven his
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
The military spends a great deal of money to train warriors. A sweet deal for private contractors. On Jul 16, 7:01 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Orders have become murky since the USA use of contractors- many times former military who can earn 6 figures rather than 5. The new Hessians. On Jul 16, 9:16 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from their superior officer You are missing a word from the UCMJ. LAWFUL. Every soldier and sailor is required to obey a LAWFUL order. Please try to be a little accurate. Regardless of where the order is initiated the CIC (not congress, not generals, not the joint chiefs) stands as the authority to issue it . As to the being fired there is a whistleblower law that will reward him greatly. The soldier in 2006 whether or not the war was legal, he had legal orders from legal authority. And yes, the beauty of the whole thing is that the Army brass stayed out of the mix by NOT issuing reasons and laid it directly on Obama by saying nothing On Jul 15, 7:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from their superior officer and I guarantee that someone between Obama and this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they had this guy's sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of going through all the legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. Guess what kind of company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes pretty good money too! Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in advance... Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006 because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was illegal, all the Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted how a soldiers duty should never be interefered with by politics and Rush Limbaugh brought up the point that, if that were allowed, half our armed forces could refuse to fight at any given moment etc... Funny how their opinion of a soldiers' duty has changed (rather hypocritically) now that the politics are on the other foot... On Jul 15, 7:35 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: I'm not talking about the courts, but the military. By revoking a standing order without explanation or qualification can only mean one thing: the order was unlawful. And since the standing order was issued by the POTUS, the POTUS must be deemed unlawful, therefore defacto. Regarding the Constitution, there is no provision for enforcing the natural born citizen rule as it pertains to the president - as a Pennsylvania district court previously pointed out, paraphrasing; Take the remedy up with the legislative. More importantly, no US court has entertained the material facts in this/these cases, citing instead the plaintiff's lack of standing. The military certainly has standing, although they're now beyond the court's jurisdiction. The military may, at their discretion, challenge the Commander-in-Chief via an emergency hearing in front of the Supreme Court. Or not, since there is no civilian law on the books to challenge the CIC's citizenship. But there is the lawful requirement. The civilian courts may choose ignore, potentially inviting a lawful military takeover. The military may also choose to ignore the underlying factor of the revocation, and risk an avalanche of additional challenges. Or, speaking plainly, use the revocation to run Obama out of office because he's not a citizen as required by the Constitution. On Jul 15, 9:41 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b. Don't be so fast. We all know the requirements for running for POTUS, I have a copy of the Constituion on my desk. But who knows for sure what agency has the responsibility to CONFIRM one's basic qualifications? Is it the FEC? When I got my passport I had to provide proof of my citizenship to a specific authority and no one else. Sure as hell did not have to provide proof to the media or anyone else. The President has a Passport, social security card, driver's license, etc. How did he get those? On Jul 15, 8:15 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Bottom line: the US Military is now required to stand down. Or request orders directly and exclusively from the Joint Chiefs - all civilian appointees are out. On Jul 15, 8:37 am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b, The Major's reasoning is sound. Under the UCMJ folowiing the orders of a superior officer who who was not legally entitled to hold his rank/ office would be illegal. On Jul 15, 7:27 am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: [Q] - A U.S. Army Reserve
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
The USA has cooked its own goose by dividing the population into consumers/celebrity freaks and the military. On Jul 16, 6:47 pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Major Cook has cooked his own goose. He should now be court martialed. On Jul 16, 11:21 am, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Frederick, IF Obama is found not to be natural born that means that any order he gave as CIC was fraudulent at the time it was given. There is but ONE solution to the problem . do as EVERY President has done prior release the documents having to do with his birth and upbringing. Short of his proving his eligibility to be CIC doubt exists and that doubt is reasonable. To refuse orders when you doubt the fitness to serve of a senior officer is within the scope his sworn duty. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Sage, As far as this issue goes, I'm not asserting that Obama will never be kicked out of office for being there illegally (although I'd bet on it!). So let's say that eventually happens. Guess what? UNTIL it happens, every order he issues is a lawful standing order. And as those who for obvious reasons, have never served and yet, love to spew their stupidity are unaware, American servicemen and women ARE government property. Legally. We had a petty officer get a tattoo on his forehead (he was drunk). At Captain's Mast (minor trial), he was found guilty of defacing GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. That's what you sign up for. Which means that until Obama is found guilty of something in a court of law, his orders are lawful. And here's the kicker: After that, they are STILL lawful unless modified by a new CIC. On Jul 16, 11:01 am, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: Obama and his entourage are being a divisive cancer to the defense of the country by refusing to present a legal document to prove where he was born. Seems to me if he put up everyone would shut up. There is a long list of papers writings that have been hidden by them as it relates to Hussein ( the socialist ) Obama. ************ On Jul 16, 1:45 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: His refusal is not based on rumor it is based on an absolute lack of proven fact. I don't think that would stand up at a military trial. Regardless of his or my doubts about Obama's origins, the court would probably find that he cannot disobey orders based on something unproven. On Jul 16, 12:40 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: His refusal is not based on rumor it is based on an absolute lack of proven fact. He swore to defend the constitution and based on that to follow lawful orders... those were the terms of his employment with the Army, Aren't the requirements for POTUS/CIC written in black and white in that document ?? Or is it that you have no use for the constitution ?? If I walk up to him wearing a generals or colenels uniform and give him an order should he follow that order when he knows or truly thinks I am not a real general ?? On Jul 16, 9:43 am, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it that you libbies get such delight in the government ruining peoples lives for political purposes? This guy clearly had no standing to refuse orders as he cannot claim, based on unsubstantiated rumors, that the commander in chief is a fraud. He should be treated as a soldier refusing orders. Not have someone get him fired. On Jul 15, 9:52 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: db you're laughable. Every soldier is required to obey an order from their superior officer and I guarantee that someone between Obama and this guy, ordered him to go. But that's okay, they had this guy's sentence figured the moment he filed. Instead of going through all the legal bs, they just revoked his security clearance. Guess what kind of company he works for? Defense contractor. Makes pretty good money too! Well, he used to, anyway. Hope his lawyer got paid in advance... Funny thing though. When that soldier refused to go to Iraq in 2006 because the WPA made clear that Bush's war was illegal, all the Conservatives and GOP called him a traitor and touted how a soldiers duty should never be interefered with by politics and Rush Limbaugh brought up the point
Re: Bombshell: Orders revoked; Major victory for Army warrior questioning Obama's birthplace
Just like police have to deal with absolute criminal vermin and be called pigs. On Jul 16, 7:14�pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: Absolutely charge Major Cook for refusal to follow orders, insubordination, and disrespect of the President of The United States of America. He used his position in the Army reserves, and his uniform for a political propaganda ploy. He disgraced his uniform and his service. On Jul 16, 5:03�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: What would the charge be ?? Possibly refusing to follow what he believed to be an unlawful order ?? Maybe calling attention to that pesky paper and the requisites not yet proven by Obama ?? The man with a suit to file is Major Cook. If the government is implicit in his being fired (civilian job) the man will (and should) make millions. If his career was ended for standing up and following his sworn duty as an officer to protect and defend the constitution against the politics involved he should be promoted. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.comwrote: What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Major Cook has cooked his own goose. He should now be court martialed. On Jul 16, 11:21 am, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Frederick, IF Obama is found not to be natural born that means that any order he gave as CIC was fraudulent at the time it was given. There is but ONE solution to the problem . do as EVERY President has done prior release the documents having to do with his birth and upbringing. Short of his proving his eligibility to be CIC doubt exists and that doubt is reasonable. To refuse orders when you doubt the fitness to serve of a senior officer is within the scope his sworn duty. On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Frederick The Moderate � frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Sage, As far as this issue goes, I'm not asserting that Obama will never be kicked out of office for being there illegally (although I'd bet on it!). So let's say that eventually happens. Guess what? UNTIL it happens, every order he issues is a lawful standing order. And as those who for obvious reasons, have never served and yet, love to spew their stupidity are unaware, American servicemen and women ARE government property. Legally. We had a petty officer get a tattoo on his forehead (he was drunk). At Captain's Mast (minor trial), he was found guilty of defacing GOVERNMENT PROPERTY. That's what you sign up for. Which means that until Obama is found guilty of something in a court of law, his orders are lawful. And here's the kicker: After that, they are STILL lawful unless modified by a new CIC. On Jul 16, 11:01 am, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: � � � � � � � � � � �Obama and his entourage �are being a divisive cancer to the defense of the country by refusing to present a legal document to prove where he was born. Seems to me if he put up everyone would shut up. There is a long list of papers writings that have been hidden by them as it relates to Hussein ( the socialist ) Obama. ***��**�*�*�**�*** On Jul 16, 1:45 pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: His refusal is not based on rumor it is based on an absolute lack of proven fact. I don't think that would stand up at a military trial. Regardless of his or my doubts about Obama's origins, the court would probably find that he cannot disobey orders based on something unproven. On Jul 16, 12:40 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: His refusal is not based on rumor it is based on an absolute lack of proven fact. He swore to defend the constitution and based on that to follow lawful orders... those were the terms of his employment with the Army, Aren't the requirements for POTUS/CIC written in black and white in that document ?? Or is it that you have no use for the constitution ?? If I walk up to him wearing a generals or colenels uniform and give him an order should he follow that order when he knows or truly thinks I am not a real general ?? On Jul 16, 9:43 am, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: Why is it that you libbies get such delight in the government ruining peoples lives for political purposes? This guy clearly had no standing to refuse orders as he cannot claim, based on unsubstantiated rumors, that the commander in chief is a fraud. He should be treated
Re: Obama's Approval Ratings
He's tall. Maybe he will die in office. On Jul 16, 7:41�pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: For those who love to quote ONLY MSNBC / CBS on the left or Rasmussen / McClatchy / Diageo on the Right, Here's the RCP Composite: President Obama Job Approval Polling Data Poll Date Sample Approve �Disapprove �Spread RCP Average 7/9 - 7/15 -- 55.8 37.8 +18.0 Gallup 7/13 - 7/15 1547 A 58 34 +24 Rasmussen Reports 7/13 - 7/15 1500 LV 51 47 +4 Diageo/Hotline 7/9 - 7/13 800 RV 56 38 +18 Ipsos/McClatchy 7/9 - 7/13 1007 A 57 38 +19 CBS News 7/9 - 7/12 944 A 57 32 +25 I remember that when all was said and done, RCP NAILED the electorate, and every single race for Congress more accurately than anyone else. MSNBC / CBS were WAY optimistic for the Dems, Rasmussen / McClatchy / Diageo were the same way for the GOP. RCP takes all of them and comes up with the Composite Average. Much less slanted so I'm sure extremists on both sides wouldn't like it... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Obama has his way with his health Plan, you can probably kiss your Parents and Grandparents goodbye
Obama has no parents. Why do you think he has sympathy or respect for parents? He is a self made. On Jul 16, 7:41 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: *http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124692973435303415.html* *Obama has his way with his health Plan, you can probably kiss your Parents and Grandparents goodbye. I read an interesting article in the WSJ dated July 7, 2009 titled “Of NICE and Men”. It had some revealing information on “National Health Insurance”. President Obama has been pushing this as his number one item – perhaps even above healing our nation’s economic problems. Anyway, “BO” has frequently used the United Kingdom as a prime example of what we should be doing as their cost per capita is about one-half of ours. When UK went to their system they attempted to cut costs through automating their system and eliminating waste (sound familiar?). It did not work. Then they created the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, acronym of NICE. This board was created in the late 1990’s in an attempt to rein in and control spiraling costs. It is basically a rationing board. It worked. Here are only a few of the reasons why it worked: · Two drugs, Lapatinib and Sutent, that prolong the life of breast and stomach cancer patients were ruled, “not covered” because they were too costly. · Certain drugs, including Sutent, that help terminally ill kidney cancer patients were also ruled, “not covered”. · One drug to treat Macular Degeneration, Macugen, was ruled “not covered” and a second drug, Lucentis, also used to treat MD was ruled to have limited coverage, that is only 1 in 5 can have it and ONLY FOR ONE EYE. Their thinking is apparently patients can still see with only one eye. · A main drug used to treat Alzheimer’s, Aricept, was also ruled to have “limited coverage”. No definition given on this one. · Many surgical procedures are also “restrained’ – for back and other problems. · Steroid injections for back pain was also “restricted”. · Fertility treatments also has “restrictions”. · Young women, under 25, are not allowed to have pap smears – this was followed by a surge in cervical cancer in young women. · A mathematical formula is used to determine many treatments. Translation: it is a cost benefit analysis. If you are old, have a chronic or terminal illness you are probably in trouble. The formula measures how much treatment costs versus how long you might live if treatment is successful. As I see it, if you are old or terminal , it is “Tough Luck Charlie, We Only Take the Best of Tuna”. The current cost cut off points are 6 months and $22,000. Today, there are very few surgeries or treatments of lingering illnesses that will fall within $22,000. Cancer survival rates in the UK are among the highest in the world. Five year survival rates of cancer patients in the US are significantly higher than in the UK. For example, breast cancer survival rates of US vs. UK are 92% vs. 57%. The UK has been buried with lawsuits as a result of NICE. The article concludes that President Obama and the Democrats claim they can extend medical coverage for tens of millions and cut costs at the same time. It cannot be done. The inevitable result will be some version of NICE that will tell tens of millions of Americans that they are too young, too old or too sick to be worth paying to care for. As a side comment, the Obama medical plan assumes all of our health data will be put on a computer system saving time and cost. Well my GP did this and the last time I went in with a problem she went ballistic because my records were neither current nor correct. I took our car in to the dealer for servicing recently and they could not find my history. Turns out they are on their third computer system in 2 years and cannot get any of them to deliver accurate information. The LA Unified School System purchased a computer system to cover paychecks. It has currently cost nearly three times the original estimate and after three years, they have reduced issuing duplicate checks and checks for erroneous amounts down to “a small percentage”. What is a small percentage of three hundred and thirty five million people? I could actually give other examples but the point is clear. Computers are great – but they do have glitches and all of them are operated by people. People make mistakes. I for one hope that the effort for “nationalized health” does not succeed. * __,_._,___ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Teddy: In His Own Words
I read somewhere his book will cost $1,000. per copy. On Jul 15, 8:48 pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: I have just spent the last hour and a half watching the HBO Special, aptly called Teddy: In His Own Words; which is written and narrated by Senator Kennedy, and gives only Senator Kennedy's perspective of his life, his family, and a historical glimpse of the Kennedy clan's political involvement throughout most of the 20th Century, since his Father's Ambassadorship in England during the 1930s. Although most thinking Americans will take issue with Senator Kennedy's perspective, his self aggrandizement; his bombastic arrogance and his HBO's choosing to gloss over a number of Senator Kennedy's Little Nasties and lack of meaningful or productive legislation, (and also failing to portray some of the worst legislation in the history of our Nation, thanks to Teddy); the film is interesting at least from a historical context, and interesting in and of itself to see how Kennedy perceives himself. Worth a watch. === Portrait of a Kennedy ‘Teddy’ kicks off new HBO documentary http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020426170457427622153217... By JAMIN BROPHY-WARREN When the news of Sen. Ted Kennedy’s brain tumor emerged last year, reporters flocked to cover each new development in the story. But Sheila Nevins, head of HBO Documentaries, opted for a longer view. HBO quickly cobbled together interviews with the senator from film and radio. Debuting Monday, “Teddy: In His Own Words” gives an overview of the senator’s life. “I didn’t know very much about him except for the Teddy we know now,” says Ms. Nevins. HBO had completed similar projects on Ted Kennedy’s brothers John and Robert. In “Teddy,” old footage of the family is shown with Mr. Kennedy’s voice as narrator. The film tracks his career from his initial foray into politics through his work on issues like civil rights, health care reform, and the minimum wage. “Teddy” kicks off HBO’s summer series which will feature a new documentary every Monday. All the movies focus on serious subjects: “Prom Night in Mississippi” looks a town’s attempt to mount an interracial prom while “Boy Interrupted” is about a 15-year-old’s struggle with depression. “We’ve cornered the market on sad,” says Ms. Nevins. Watch a scene from Prom Night in Mississippi. Video courtesy of HBO. The new HBO documentary series appears amid a glut of reality television, including Oxygen’s competitive weight-loss show “Dance Your A** Off” and the popular “Real Housewives” franchise on Bravo. HBO is embracing a form of reality television with its documentary series, but the network is giving the genre its own spin. “The theatre of real people’s lives is infinitely interesting without too much doctoring,” says Ms. Nevins. “There’s nothing more fascinating than overhearing a real conversation. Nothing has to be redone. You don’t have to follow a family that’s not real or put people in a house. I’m just not interested.” *Corrections Amplifications* Rory Kennedy, daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, wasn’t involved with the production of “Teddy: In His Own Words.” A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that she worked closely on the film. RuinationOfAmerica.jpg 109KViewDownload --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: The Illegal Cheney CIA plan, Al Qaeda Hit Squads
I don't find it funny. What exactly do you think 9-11 was if not a hit squad along with the previous attempt, the African embassies, the residence in Saudi Arabia, the USS Cole? Or Iran's hostage taking? Or Lebanon/Hezbollah bombing of the Marine barracks? Or the Intifada supported by Saddam and Saudi Arabia? Etc. When are you going to start viewing this as more serious than MSM? Or dimwit Congress? Or shopping Americans? WE ARE AT WAR! On Jul 15, 8:57�pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: LOL Zeb you're funny. You obviously know squat about the US intelligence services though. On Jul 15, 5:42�pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: They didn't hide killing al Queda leaders. The proposal was NEVER INITIATED. The Pentagon, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI consider many possible scenarios. They don't go to Congress and say Hey, one of our guys thought of pouring tons of laundry detergent into the Red Sea every time someone proposes something. They do tell Congress when they decide to move forward with a plan. Get it? On Jul 15, 8:32�pm, VT VirtualTruth thevirtualtr...@gmail.com wrote: Are you sure? Because I find no reason to hide the killing of Al qaeda leaders from the Congressional over sight Committee Chairman. Bush said this was the objective PUBLICLY in speeches. On Jul 15, 8:25�pm, Zebnick zebn...@gmail.com wrote: The plan was to kill the al Queda leaders, not their supporters. On Jul 15, 8:21�pm, VT Sean Lewis thevirtualtr...@gmail.com wrote: Yesterday I asked myself a question, what would make an Al qaeda hit team illegal? A hit team that killed prominent foreigners in foreign countries who supported or helped finance Al qaeda? Just a thought.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Who said Sarah will disappear into the wilderness?
Mort Zuckerman had an ominous outlook in today's WSJ- primarily tied to high unemployment.// Sarah's appointees will not disappear, either, from what I hear. :-)//The real slick is redistribution of wealth, however, under Obama's overall plan for America and the tug of war that result between capitalism and socialism affecting not only $$$ but culture/social classes. On Jul 14, 7:05�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: WaPo: The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End By Sarah Palin Tuesday, July 14, 2009 There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented. Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be: I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage. American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy- rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy. There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy. Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs. In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase. The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics. The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will necessarily skyrocket. So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity. We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today. In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats. Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy. We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama's plan will result in the latter. For so many reasons, we can't afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices. Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation? Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama's energy cap-and-tax plan.
Re: Liberal-Islamist Alliance
The Prophet bestows praise on such instances of treachery, inhumanity, cruelty, revenge, bigotry, as are utterly incompatible with civilized society. No steady rule of right seems there to be attained to; and every action is blamed or praised, so far only as it is beneficial or hurtful to the true believers. David Hume- Of the Standard of Taste On Jul 14, 8:37 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: Leftists just don’t get it: When Islam reigns…their heads are all on the chopping block…or they will live as slaves…but that is a leftist preference anyway. B *Amil Imani* *Liberal-Islamist Alliance *July 14, 2009 Presently, fanatical Islamists are lashing out with mad fury before their own final demise. The “infidel” world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed. Our academia leftists even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of our leftist *intellengtsia**.* These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam itself, simply because they are redundant. Even a cursory study of Islam and its charter—the Quran—will clearly reveal that it is a radical political movement. It is the socialist leftists and paid-for-media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate. http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/imani/2009/07142009.htm Presently, fanatical Islamists are lashing out with mad fury before their own final demise. The “infidel” world has been complicit in the surge of Islamism through its mistakes, complacency, and greed. Our academia leftists even engage in willful misinformation and deception when it suits them. Terms such as “Political Islam,” or “Radical Islam,” for instance, are contributions of our leftist *intellengtsia**.* These terms do not even exist in the native parlance of Islam itself, simply because they are redundant. Even a cursory study of Islam and its charter—the Quran—will clearly reveal that it is a radical political movement. It is the socialist leftists and paid-for-media and politicians who sanitize Islam and misguide the populace by saying that the “real Islam” constitutes the main body of the religion; and, that this main body is non-political and moderate. Our liberal professors claim that Islam is inherently good, the majority of Muslims are good and only a small minority has hijacked the good faith of Muhammad by engaging in acts of intolerance, hatred and violence. I agree, it is not uncommon to observe Muslims, anywhere in the world, who are indeed exemplary in many ways. They are kind, generous and much more. But these are the Cultural Muslims who are, in effect, only part Muslim. The question is: why is it that the good Islam is not ruling in the world and the bad Islam is engulfing it in fire? Some clear instances of the rule of the real Islam are seen in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia. Iranians are completely suffocated by the real Islam and that is one reason they are revolting against the rule of Sharia (Islamic Law) and that is why they are being butchered by the representative of Allah on earth, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who considers himself the shadow of “Allah.” Human nature is also the culprit, in part. We humans are attracted to hate like flies are to honey. Hate is an easy sell. It is appealing and little effort is required to hate. Hate gathers up the person’s or the group’s frustrations, anxieties, fears, paranoia and many other negative emotions in one handy bundle and hurls it at a convenient target. History is replete with instances of hate energizing the masses into commitment of small and large scale atrocities. All one has to do is to read the history of Islam and find out the truth for himself. Mainstream Islam has been outright genocidal from inception. Their own historians record that Ali, the first imam of the Shiite and the son-in-law of Muhammad, with the help of another man, beheaded 700 Jewish men in what is known as “massacre of the Banu Qurayza”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayzainthe presence of the Prophet himself. The Prophet of Allah and his disciples took the murdered men’s women and children in slavery. Muslims have been, and continue to be, the most vicious and shameless practitioners of slaveryhttp://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=55 The slave trade, even today, is a thriving business in some Islamic lands where wealthy, perverted sheiks purchase children of the poor from traffickers for their own sadistic gratification. The Islamist, with the help of our liberal leftists, take advantage of the provisions of the most benign system known to humanity, democracy, to implode
Re: MADE IN AMERICA???
Also inspect all canned goods as to country of origin. Many are coming from China and their tinning process is suspect. On Jul 14, 9:58�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Travis, Boycott Wal-Mart untill they agree to buy most, or at least SOME, of the products they sell in the U.S instead of from their commie pals is Red China. They are the world's largest retailer, they are big enough that even if a product they want to stock is made no where in the U.S. someone will move or build a plant here to get that business. On Jul 14, 9:22�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: *John Smith started the day early having set his alarm** **clock* *(MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 am.* *While his **coffeepot* *(MADE IN CHINA)* *was perking, he shaved with his* *electric razor* *(MADE IN HONG KONG)* *He put on a* *dress shirt* *(MADE IN SRI LANKA),* *designer** jeans* *(MADE IN SINGAPORE)* *and* *tennis shoes* *(MADE IN KOREA)* *After cooking his breakfast in his new* *electric skillet* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he sat down with his* *calculator* *(MADE IN MEXICO)* *to see how much he could spend today. * *After setting his* *watch* *(MADE IN TAIWAN)* *to the radio* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he got in his **car* *(MADE IN GERMANY)* *filled it with **GAS* *(from Saudi Arabia)* *and continued his search* *for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.* *At the end of yet another **discouraging* *and **fruitless day* *checking his* *Computer* *(made in MALAYSIA),* *John decided to relax for a while.* *He put on his **sandals* *(MADE IN BRAZIL),* *poured himself a glass of* *wine* *(MADE IN FRANCE)* *and turned on his* *TV* *(MADE IN INDONESIA),* *and then wondered why he can't* *find a good paying job* *in AMERICA* *AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT* *MADE IN KENYA* *Y'all gotta Keep this one circulating, please!*- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: MADE IN AMERICA???
What about the madras from India that shrinks? Any clothing from the Near or Far East should be washed by hand as it shrinks or the dye runs. It's complete corruption. I have some things of my mother's prior to Red China which have integrity.// Yes- the baby forumla was an evil crime- homicide. So was the dog food.// Plus J told me a nearby Chinese restaurant laid its meat on the floor when a contractor was doing some work- no wonder the swinging doors!// What to do with immoral nations that own our broken Treasury? On Jul 14, 10:16�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, And don't forget the baby formula that proved fatal. On Jul 14, 10:03�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Also inspect all canned goods as to country of origin. Many are coming from China and their tinning process is suspect. On Jul 14, 9:58 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Travis, Boycott Wal-Mart untill they agree to buy most, or at least SOME, of the products they sell in the U.S instead of from their commie pals is Red China. They are the world's largest retailer, they are big enough that even if a product they want to stock is made no where in the U.S. someone will move or build a plant here to get that business. On Jul 14, 9:22 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: *John Smith started the day early having set his alarm** **clock* *(MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 am.* *While his **coffeepot* *(MADE IN CHINA)* *was perking, he shaved with his* *electric razor* *(MADE IN HONG KONG)* *He put on a* *dress shirt* *(MADE IN SRI LANKA),* *designer** jeans* *(MADE IN SINGAPORE)* *and* *tennis shoes* *(MADE IN KOREA)* *After cooking his breakfast in his new* *electric skillet* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he sat down with his* *calculator* *(MADE IN MEXICO)* *to see how much he could spend today. * *After setting his* *watch* *(MADE IN TAIWAN)* *to the radio* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he got in his **car* *(MADE IN GERMANY)* *filled it with **GAS* *(from Saudi Arabia)* *and continued his search* *for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.* *At the end of yet another **discouraging* *and **fruitless day* *checking his* *Computer* *(made in MALAYSIA),* *John decided to relax for a while.* *He put on his **sandals* *(MADE IN BRAZIL),* *poured himself a glass of* *wine* *(MADE IN FRANCE)* *and turned on his* *TV* *(MADE IN INDONESIA),* *and then wondered why he can't* *find a good paying job* *in AMERICA* *AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT* *MADE IN KENYA* *Y'all gotta Keep this one circulating, please!*- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: MADE IN AMERICA???
The sad fact is that our own business leaders have raped America- in timber, steel, mills, etc. and their grandchildren go to Harvard and Yale then to Washington. I think we need tariffs or there will be no American economy built on what home industries and raw products that remain. On Jul 14, 9:58�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Travis, Boycott Wal-Mart untill they agree to buy most, or at least SOME, of the products they sell in the U.S instead of from their commie pals is Red China. They are the world's largest retailer, they are big enough that even if a product they want to stock is made no where in the U.S. someone will move or build a plant here to get that business. On Jul 14, 9:22�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote: *John Smith started the day early having set his alarm** **clock* *(MADE IN JAPAN) for 6 am.* *While his **coffeepot* *(MADE IN CHINA)* *was perking, he shaved with his* *electric razor* *(MADE IN HONG KONG)* *He put on a* *dress shirt* *(MADE IN SRI LANKA),* *designer** jeans* *(MADE IN SINGAPORE)* *and* *tennis shoes* *(MADE IN KOREA)* *After cooking his breakfast in his new* *electric skillet* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he sat down with his* *calculator* *(MADE IN MEXICO)* *to see how much he could spend today. * *After setting his* *watch* *(MADE IN TAIWAN)* *to the radio* *(MADE IN INDIA)* *he got in his **car* *(MADE IN GERMANY)* *filled it with **GAS* *(from Saudi Arabia)* *and continued his search* *for a good paying AMERICAN JOB.* *At the end of yet another **discouraging* *and **fruitless day* *checking his* *Computer* *(made in MALAYSIA),* *John decided to relax for a while.* *He put on his **sandals* *(MADE IN BRAZIL),* *poured himself a glass of* *wine* *(MADE IN FRANCE)* *and turned on his* *TV* *(MADE IN INDONESIA),* *and then wondered why he can't* *find a good paying job* *in AMERICA* *AND NOW HE'S HOPING HE CAN GET HELP FROM A PRESIDENT* *MADE IN KENYA* *Y'all gotta Keep this one circulating, please!*- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Who Wrote Her Speech, Cheech and Chong?
In Defense of Palin and Sanford by Stanley Fish http://fishblogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/in-defense-of-palin-and sanford The reader comments were excoriating! On Jul 6, 8:13�pm, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: It's a shame Sarah didn't go to Columbia or Harvard. Or Princeton on Affirmative Action. It's a shame she's not a liberal with the massive intellectual capacity of Nancy Pelosi or a Contessa Brewer. No wonder the elites are so unhappy she was elected president. Which reminds me, a college professor named Barack Obama is proposing surrendering our military arsenal to Mr. Putin, supporting dictators in Iran and Honduras, and turning Michael Jackson into America's national pastime. All I can say is that it's a good thing Obama wasn't elected president. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Palin
I think the best course is to avoid any mental contact with these people like Dowd, Huffington, Letterman, etc. It's simply vicious spew. The best thing is that my converter box for HD is erratic so I rarely watch tv anymore- am listening to and playing more music, reading, praying for America to regain its senses. On Jul 4, 6:38�pm, bruce majors bruce.maj...@gmail.com wrote: Did Arianna put you up to this? Just because she married a gay man for a green card and his money and her eggs are all rotten she has to spit her envy at Sarah Palin, who has so totally eclipsed her without the advantages of an Oxford education and a multi-million divorce settlement. Poor sad bitch. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-sean-nelson/a-post-apology_b_22556... A Post Apologyhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-sean-nelson/a-post-apology_b_22556... Source:www.huffingtonpost.com I wrote a piece making fun of the fact that a Trig Palin joke was given as the reason that Sarah Palin left office. I wrote jokes that were offensive but my intent was for them to be ironic and therefore not offensive. I was wrong. Within ten minutes of my post I received some emails from the loved ones of the retarded and I saw that my piece was hurtful. Therefore, I removed the post right after receiving the... �http://www.facebook.com/apps/application.php?id=46744042133ref=mfabout an hour agohttp://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1431607314v=feedstory_fbid=9...� Comment � Like http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=87890597859# On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:19 AM, Bethanie Gordon gersf...@comcast.netwrote: � I think that her resignation was less any political ploy than it was that the constant charges aganst her �and her administration and staff of ethics violations was costly and a �detrimental to the job she was chosen to do as governor. I seriously think she regrest the day as governor that she took the job as vice presidential candidate. I have n ever seen any candidate have their children attacked like hers have been. What I want to know is if she is such an incompetent joke, whya re liberals so agressive against her? I mean surely no one that unqualified and stupid could get electedright? Besides she isn;t runnign for anything and yet the attacks continue don her. Furthermore. why is it that Michael Jackson was said to be innocent because he was aquitted of all charges, but Sarah Palin had her charges dismissed and yet she is supposedly guilty anwyay? Could it be that she is guilty because she wasn't charged with sexually fondling of children? Beth �__._,_.___ � Messages in this topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/message/125933;_ylc=X3oDMT...( 38) �Reply (via web post) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJzMnJiY3Ey...| Start a new topic http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbjhpNjBz... �Messageshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJmbmE1...| Fileshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/files;_ylc=X3oDMTJnZWVmbGc...| Photoshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/photos;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGhxaW...| Pollshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJnYW1laHE...| Calendarhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/calendar;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZTFy... � [image: Yahoo! Groups]http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaTFmZGluBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl... Change settings via the Webhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJnbHNsbmlv...(Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digestrumblesalist-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=email+delivery:+Digest| Switch format to Traditionalrumblesalist-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=change+delivery+format:+Traditional �Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNTk2NWphBF9TA...| Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ | Unsubscribe rumblesalist-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject= � �Recent Activity � �- �2 � �New Membershttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJncTNkc... � � - �1 � �New Photoshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/spnew;_ylc=X3oDMTJnMGRzNHE... � � - �1 � �New Pollshttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList/polls;_ylc=X3oDMTJoNmdydGx... �Visit Your Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RumblesAList;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZjE3cWphBF9TA... � Give Back Yahoo! for Goodhttp://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJuNTFxZGVjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEE... Get inspired by a good cause. �Y! Toolbar Get it Free!http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwMW9yOWZhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIE... easy 1-click access to your groups. �Yahoo! Groups Start a grouphttp://groups.yahoo.com/start;_ylc=X3oDMTJwbmk1dW5uBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF... in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. � . __,_._,___- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -
Re: Sarah Palin is a quitter she can give it but she can't take it!
Who is Maureen Dowd? A spinster of words. As is Oprah. Martha. Joy. Baba. Tyra. On Jul 4, 2:34�pm, VT VirtualTruth thevirtualtr...@gmail.com wrote: She is the female Bush who didn't bother finishing his NG obligation because it was hard work. On Jul 4, 10:08�am, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Many just accept that lame duck status, and they hit that road, Palin said. She is not a lame duck. she is simply lame; and all those that think she is Presidential material are just as lame. She is Obamas mirror image saying and professing anything to reach the right just as Obama did with the left. She has given no reason for stepping down as Governor thus shirking her sworn duty without cause. The only thing she has going for her is she has a great rack. On Jul 3, 8:52�pm, Jim Willis conservativespringfi...@gmail.com wrote: Who are you trying to impress with your flat literary commentary? I'm not getting it...it may just be me. Though...perhaps it is the author; I'm just saying... On Jul 3, 9:43�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: Jim W, Damn, there's that oddly disconcerting, yet quite meaningless noise again, blah-blah-rant-blah-(liberal lout) blah-rant-blah. There seem to be some sort of regular pattern, yet it really means nothing when you listen carefully. What the fuck IS that? On Jul 3, 7:21�pm, Jim Willis conservativespringfi...@gmail.com wrote: I just eat this up with a spoon...At the mention of Sarah s' name liberals run screaming into the night, hair on fire and ruminate in overdone machinations, gesticulations, bed-wetting fetal prone panic. Their foil to this fanaticism is the oft assumption and portrayal of Sarah as an ill informed rube, more cartographic an Inuit demographic and cartoonish in behavior. Let's ply these liberal louts with their own postulation. Let us suppose, for arguments sake Sarah to be the water-head, developmentally disabled, drooling diva that you intellectual sloths would have us to believe. Why then; would you sanctimonious schemers point that out. You from the all-inclusive, everyone gets a hug party. I'm not buying it...or, even renting it overnight. No; buck up and face the bitter-sweet pill, Betty. Sarah scares the white cotton panties off you self described, compassionate, jack-booted thugs. She's the real deal, the genuine article. Lest you forget; you begged for Reagan to be the nominee too. Be careful what you wish for mate! On Jul 3, 4:39�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: bruce, What's a speech monkey? You can teach those hairy little fuckers to give speeches? OH GAWD, how I hope she's the Repub candidate for 2012, nothing would make me happier. On Jul 3, 4:20�pm, bruce majors bruce.maj...@gmail.com wrote: Poor widdle Seanie shows himself to be a widdle idiot She just gave a speech monkey and told you why she resigned pootie boy She did it so Alaska would not have to spend time on a new batch of the fraidy cat Demwits frivolous ethics law suits,since they lost the first batch in court. She is now going to be running and campaigning nationally against your leaders and their fascism On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 5:07 PM, VT Sean Lewis thevirtualtr...@gmail.comwrote: She could give it but couldn't take it! After all the horrible things she said about President Obama, during the campaign, she couldn't personally take the heat at the LOCAL level of Government as Governor of Alaska. Imagine how she would have waffled on the NATIONAL level if she faced the same constant unrelenting ridicule President Obama deals with from the Fringe No-Publicans. She obviously doesn't have what it takes to be a NATIONAL leader.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Rumors fly about Palin’s ‘iceberg scandal’
Fear and envy.MSM has tied its bowels to Barry and Michelle. On Jul 4, 4:57 pm, frankg fran...@gmail.com wrote: The real question is what rock did YOU crawl out from? How do you people justify this type of attack? Exactly what has Palin done, either personally or politically, to warrant such ignorant comments? The travel expenses were investigated and it was concluded there was no wrongdoing. Making matters worse for the Palin attack dogs is that, despite the ruling, she still paid back those expenses that were deemed ‘questionable’. When has a politician ever done that before? We already know the problem is rampant in Washington. Are you prepared to demand that all politicians, at every level, be investigated for abuse of power for using taxpayer money for personal travel? …yeah, I didn’t think so. On Jul 4, 5:27 pm, coatesmoe coates...@gmail.com wrote: left wing socialist loons! left wing socialist loons! The Captain never leaves the ship until the entire crew is in safety. An officer never leaves the battle field until the last man has fallen. Get the job done, complete the mission... What is Palin´s game plan? Her advance to the rear is a signal to the old white boys party to drop your basic code of honor, your sense of duty, your moral responsibility to the voter and haul a*s. Where does America find these people? Someone tell me under what rock does she crawl out of? Are the people who cheer for her the same people who marry their sisters and have six fingers on their hands. On Jul 4, 10:00 pm, Sage2 wisdom...@gmail.com wrote: PALIN has been cleared of 16 such absurd accusations and now those who suffer from PALIN derangement syndrome such as you carry on. The Huffington Post ! Give me a break! So far you left wing socialist loons are batting 0 of 16. Then again you tag yourself VT ( virtual truth ) virtual : 1. existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form or reality. 2. existing in the mind especially a product of the imagination. A lot of help from a psychiatrist will go a long way for those who suffer from this derangement syndrome, and good luck . *** *** *** ** On Jul 4, 3:24 pm, VT Sean Lewis thevirtualtr...@gmail.com wrote: Update: GOP strategist says ‘inept’ move could seem ’suspicious’ to many; BradBlog now suggests that Palin’s resignation was due to an upcoming Federal indictment for embezzlement. Max Blumenthal at The Daily Beast adds more details. In the wake of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin’s surprise resignation on Friday, rumors are beginning to circulate that she might have acted in anticipation of a previously unsuspected scandal being revealed. Alaskan blogger Shannyn Moore suggested at Huffington Post that “rumors of an ‘iceberg scandal’ have been circulating” even before today’s announcement. “Resignation is certainly out of character for Sarah Palin,” Moore noted. “Senator Mark Begich had a meeting with Sarah Palin two days ago with no mention of her leaving office. Palin’s press secretary, David Murrow had posted on his Facebook page Wednesday, ‘David Murrow is considering life’s ironies.’ He was hired less than a month ago. Yesterday he wrote, ‘There’s gonna be some fireworks this weekend!’” Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo similarly suggested, “Remember that based on the public record, Palin is a wildly unethical public official, guilty at a minimum of numerous instances of abusing her authority as governor. And a lot of very damaging information has come out about her in the last few days — though mainly embarrassing information about her character rather than new evidence of bad acts. I would not be surprised if this latest round of revelations shook something else loose that we haven’t heard about yet.” Moore later spoke by phone with BradBlog’s Brad Friedman and told him that “Palin is ‘resigning as part of damage control’ due to a scandal this is ‘not of a family nature.’” “The governor would not be able to continue her job when it comes out,” Moore told Friedman. “Why would Mark Sanford not resign, but Sarah Palin did? Her family didn’t even know about the resignation until they were standing with her by the lake when she made her announcement.” Update: BradBlog is now reporting additional information received from Alaskans who follow Palin: “I’ve now been able to get independent information from multiple sources that all of this precedes what are said to be possible federal indictments against Palin, concerning an
Re: Will Al Franken help or hurt the Democrats?
Just another clown to stuff in the Volkswagon of the Democratic circus! On Jul 1, 9:48�am, Max52 mchris...@hotmail.com wrote: OK he won and people cheer now that the Democrats in name have a super majority. Well as it is said, It's that special! The Democrats now lost all their excuses to blame the Republicans. Look at what history Al Franken is going to bring to Congress. A Saturday Night Live writer which he wasn't very good at. Air America which is now on life support and left. 2010 is coming the mood of American is changing and Obama has push to the left a bit too far in my mind. In life as in physics for action there is equal and opposit reaction. I just don't see this as an asset but he may just come back to haunt them. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New Clown In Senate
He should be invited to Witless House and reagale the Obamas with his
rape jokes!
On Jun 30, 1:10�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote:
Minn.Sup Ct. affirms Al Franken to be winner of senate race. �Senate IQ
average now at .001.
--
*~@):~{
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New Clown In Senate
regale
On Jun 30, 5:11�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote:
He should be invited to Witless House and reagale the Obamas with his
rape jokes!
On Jun 30, 1:10 pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote:
Minn.Sup Ct. affirms Al Franken to be winner of senate race. Senate IQ
average now at .001.
--
*~@):~{- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New Clown In Senate
Probably sweat glands, farts and belches. What's the social life on
subs? That ended my daughter's interest in the Navy.
On Jun 30, 5:06�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote:
Richard,
Most Presidents are.
wrong ideas would be a matter of opinon.
A man who has served on a nuclear sunmarine knows very well how to
work closely with others and get along. The man was anything but
ignorant.
Following the end of the Vietnam War, Nixon's wage price freeze and
other economic problems as well as the 1973 OPEC oil embargo I HARDLY
think you can blame Jimmy carter solely in the economic problems of
the late 70's!
The Isreali-Egyptian peace treaty he brokered is STILL standing, a
notable achievement.
I'm sorry your arguement is nothing but name calling and unfounded
accusations. You've made a poor case indeed.
On Jun 30, 4:40�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Because, he was a micro-manager, with the wrong ideas, a complete
inability to even work well with his friends and became isolated and
even more ignorant as time went on. �He was a financial disaster, a
social disaster and ranks without doubt as the worst President of my
lifetime and probably the worst one ever.
On Jun 30, 2:01�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote:
Richard,
Why do you say Jimmy Carter was the worst ever? Wouldn't that depend
on your individual definition of Worst?
I mean NO one can dispute that Ronald Reagan was a 2nd rate actor.
On Jun 30, 2:04�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Imagine the joy of most of the country in getting rid of the worst
President ever.
Jimmy Carter was a complete and utter disaster on all fronts.
On Jun 30, 12:59�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote:
Richard,
That's only a single state. Imagine my dismay when we choose a 2rd
rate actor to be POTUS in 1980?
On Jun 30, 1:32�pm, RichardForbes richard_forbe...@hotmail.com
wrote:
And to think, I thought they were joking when they elected Jesse
Ventura.
That state has real problems.
On Jun 30, 12:10�pm, Travis baconl...@gmail.com wrote:
Minn.Sup Ct. affirms Al Franken to be winner of senate race.
�Senate IQ
average now at .001.
--
*~@):~{- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups.
For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Wrong. It wasn't a civil question. Let's face it, Hollywood, there is too much static between our brains to communicate. On Jun 27, 6:50�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, I most likely know as much, or more, about history as you. Don't you even want to TRY and expalin what your point is and what relevance it had to the posr you were, in theory at least, responding to? I asked a perfectly civil question of you. Why would i want to kick my tires or my cat (don't have a dog, sorry)? On Jun 27, 5:12�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Go kick your tires or your dog, Hollywood. Or read some history! On Jun 27, 5:03 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Okay. What is the point you are attempting to make? I don't see where Fred was trying to imply that the Bush administration invented torture or warfare. So what are you trying to say that is a response to, or a comment on, his post? On Jun 27, 4:43 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You might ask for a guidebook from Israeli interrogators. First of all you can speak or read their language and culture- a flaw of Columbus. The Spanish and British were brutal conquerors- always. The Romans could also be brutal. Etc. Blah-blah history of human warfare. Our Civil War. I suppose the firebombings of civilian cities in WWII and dropping the A-bomb on paper and wood cities was an act of mercy, was it? Anyway I guess we retrieved a piece of our soul with the Marshall Plan. Made up for the centuries of brute treatment of Indian Nations.The millions who have died in this game of war and conquest are disgusting. On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Keith in Tampa: Uhm..We'll all sit right here, atwitter with excitement and anticipation, awating your proof from personal experience, that the former Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques did not gain us intelligence or protect our Nation. I say that it did, and the evidence is overwhelming that these tactics worked. Keith, I don't know if there is a place on the net or somewhere to research what I did in the military: Interrogation / Counter- Interrogation (among other things). I don't want to get too long-winded or technical so I'll do my best to be succinct and lucid. 1. Physical torture pretty much never works. I laughed whenever I saw idiot congressmen asking questions like What if there was one hour.. and a nuke... and Jack Bauer! etc... Life is not tv. In that situation, the bad guy always gives mis0information and watches Jack rush off to save Chicago while the bomb is in Denver. The problem with physical torture is that it is the ONLY kind of harsh interrogation that virtually everyone expects / prepares for. And what is always given, is a combination of truth and lies. Just enough to be more damaging than good. 2. Before any techniques are employed by a professional, a psych profile is done. The reasons that people convert to assets for us are the same reasons that people commit sociopathic (terrorist) acts. The three most common are 1. Ideology 2. Revenge and 3. Money. With Terrorists, numbers 1 2 are the usual motivators. Physically torturing these individuals will only prove to them that they are right and strengthen their resolve. Imagine the most patriotic, Right Wing Southern Baptist being captured by Afghans and asked for information that would destroy America. Torture would have them dying in the name of Jesus and martyring themselves for America the beautiful. Or just imagine yourself under those circumstances. 3. So once you have a professional do a pysch profile, you may not get accurate intel for a while but it won't be long before you know whether you have someone who is the real deal or a dupe caught in the crossfire. A real threat will can't help but display some level of preparation for counter-interrogation. We had people at Git-mo for years and let them go. Worse, some of the wrong people were let go. It is obvious that the people doing the interrogating at Abu Graihb and Git-mo were not professionals. This was not about protecting the nation or gathering intel. 4. Effective interrogation never involves repeatedly using the same technique. Repetition results in psychological preparation and desensitizing of the subject. If you repeatedly shock two rats but turn on a red light just before the shocks for one, the one with preparation of what's comeing will live 3 - 4 times longer. No professional would waterboard someone 30 or even 5 times a day, if they were trying to gather accurate intel. Physical duress is never as effective as psychological manipulation
Re: FW: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Rather, education is getting ruined. On Jun 28, 1:51�am, sILVER bELLE marianne_39...@hotmail.com wrote: � This is getting oldNot a damn one of yall know your HISTORY OR CIVICS. �The Pres VP �do NOT run the country. �Yall must have ALL failed American History. �George Washington set the government up with a check balance system...its called Democracy The HOUSE passes. �It goes to the Senate. �THEN the Pres. �He can sign or not AND �re-send it to the HOUSE. �The House represents We the People... �Also: �The USA will ALWAYS stick its nose in the business of other countries. �WHO is the President is a mute pointthe President represents the USAHe (or She... we WILL have a she one day...) �The President is basically a 'figurehead'...get right down to it its the LOBBYIST (misspelled) who have the larger 'say-so' /influence. �sILVER bELLE Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:48:57 -0700 Subject: Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon From: frederickshel...@gmail.com To: PoliticalForum@googlegroups.com I agree with much of what you and Dick wrote about plame but there are other factors that I think about, when it comes to responsibility. And having OC doesn't mean someone is less valuable or even safe. I don't consider Bush / Cheney Conservative or even Republican. On Jun 27, 6:37 pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Fred, Yep, I would love to have that discussion, I am genuine, I imagine that it would be interesting, and I would love to hear some of the insight that you may have. Having said that, I took a great deal of time to read and study the few documents that were released by the Obama Administration, to include the Rumsfeld Defense Department Working Group Memorandum, �the Jay Bybee Memoranda �and the Steve Bradbury Memoranda, as well as the John Yoo Memoranda which had been released previously. I am convinced that the enhanced interrogation techniques were successful, for a number of reasons, most of which the mainstream media have discounted or not focused upon, and of which I have written previously here in the group about. Most all conservatives were dismayed with the Bush Administration. �I was one that became disillusioned with Bush very early on in his first term. Bush was not a conservative, and he betrayed not only his Party but all conservatives that had supported him. �The distinction between conservatives that were disillusioned and those Americans that are Moonbats and who, Hate Bush, But Don't Know Why, are generally apparent to thinking Americans, but I am sure would add to the conversation!! Hard for me to muster sympathy for Plame and Wilson. �I agree that in principal, it was wrong, but I think Plame was pretty much out of the closet due to Wilson long before any alleged break in security took place, and LIbbey was nothing more than the fall guy for a corrupt, rigged jury and Moonbats who were wanting a piece of flesh. On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:23 PM, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: I have been ostracized on another board by BOTH parties because waterboarding is not something I'm against. I had to go through worse while I was in the Navy and that was from my own government - of course I volunteered for it but in any case, waterboarding does not cause any soft tissue or bone damage. Freaks you out in a big hairy way but that's the point. On the other side, What you quote about Khalid is not accurate. It's what was fed to the public but it's not accurate. There is much i would love to say about the Bush Cheney administration but oh well. I'll say this: I don't see them as a representation of the GOP or the USA. And to me, NO ONE has the right to step on the Consitutition. The president doesn't swear an oath to protect the USA, he protects an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. I think you and me probably share many opinions and probably disagree on just as many - I don't follow either party's line or ideology. I wish I could sit down and explain why it's obvious so much of this was not about gaining accurate intel. Would probably make for a cool discussion and I think you'd get it. Also, I'm also still pretty peeved about SOMEBODY outing an active agent (Plame). That's attempted murder and treason in my book. And everyone knows it came from on high. On Jun 27, 3:02 pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: Fred, Well, we agree on several things. � For one, it was not our military's job, nor were ANY military personnel ever authorized to utilize any form of torture in the field. �We agree that the military is not trained to be involved in such matters. �Those who attempted to do so were absolutely wrong, and most were punished for it. �*See* former
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Fine! On Jun 28, 9:33�am, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Quite possibly. �But I csan live with that happily enough. On Jun 28, 1:26�am, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Wrong. It wasn't a civil question. Let's face it, Hollywood, there is too much static between our brains to communicate. On Jun 27, 6:50 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, I most likely know as much, or more, about history as you. Don't you even want to TRY and expalin what your point is and what relevance it had to the posr you were, in theory at least, responding to? I asked a perfectly civil question of you. Why would i want to kick my tires or my cat (don't have a dog, sorry)? On Jun 27, 5:12 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Go kick your tires or your dog, Hollywood. Or read some history! On Jun 27, 5:03 pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Okay. What is the point you are attempting to make? I don't see where Fred was trying to imply that the Bush administration invented torture or warfare. So what are you trying to say that is a response to, or a comment on, his post? On Jun 27, 4:43 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You might ask for a guidebook from Israeli interrogators. First of all you can speak or read their language and culture- a flaw of Columbus. The Spanish and British were brutal conquerors- always. The Romans could also be brutal. Etc. Blah-blah history of human warfare. Our Civil War. I suppose the firebombings of civilian cities in WWII and dropping the A-bomb on paper and wood cities was an act of mercy, was it? Anyway I guess we retrieved a piece of our soul with the Marshall Plan. Made up for the centuries of brute treatment of Indian Nations.The millions who have died in this game of war and conquest are disgusting. On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Keith in Tampa: Uhm..We'll all sit right here, atwitter with excitement and anticipation, awating your proof from personal experience, that the former Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques did not gain us intelligence or protect our Nation. I say that it did, and the evidence is overwhelming that these tactics worked. Keith, I don't know if there is a place on the net or somewhere to research what I did in the military: Interrogation / Counter- Interrogation (among other things). I don't want to get too long-winded or technical so I'll do my best to be succinct and lucid. 1. Physical torture pretty much never works. I laughed whenever I saw idiot congressmen asking questions like What if there was one hour.. and a nuke... and Jack Bauer! etc... Life is not tv. In that situation, the bad guy always gives mis0information and watches Jack rush off to save Chicago while the bomb is in Denver. The problem with physical torture is that it is the ONLY kind of harsh interrogation that virtually everyone expects / prepares for. And what is always given, is a combination of truth and lies. Just enough to be more damaging than good. 2. Before any techniques are employed by a professional, a psych profile is done. The reasons that people convert to assets for us are the same reasons that people commit sociopathic (terrorist) acts. The three most common are 1. Ideology 2. Revenge and 3. Money. With Terrorists, numbers 1 2 are the usual motivators. Physically torturing these individuals will only prove to them that they are right and strengthen their resolve. Imagine the most patriotic, Right Wing Southern Baptist being captured by Afghans and asked for information that would destroy America. Torture would have them dying in the name of Jesus and martyring themselves for America the beautiful. Or just imagine yourself under those circumstances. 3. So once you have a professional do a pysch profile, you may not get accurate intel for a while but it won't be long before you know whether you have someone who is the real deal or a dupe caught in the crossfire. A real threat will can't help but display some level of preparation for counter-interrogation. We had people at Git-mo for years and let them go. Worse, some of the wrong people were let go. It is obvious that the people doing the interrogating at Abu Graihb and Git-mo were not professionals. This was not about protecting the nation or gathering intel. 4. Effective interrogation never involves repeatedly
Re: Wish this info had been available before the bill was passed
Is that why they fly into windows and jet plane engines? On Jun 28, 12:29�pm, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: Agriculture works just fine under the wind mills and the birds do have eyes. On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:52 AM, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.netwrote: But they will and you know they will. �We will find the equivalent of spiking trees by groups like ELF sabotaging the windmills and solar panels because of the migratory birds. � And I would assume West Texas is also good �for other things as well. �Don't they have agriculture there now? Where are you going to put that? RichardForbes wrote: West Texas would be an option, if the ecologists don't ruin it by worrying about migratory birds. On Jun 28, 10:46 am, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: Where are you going to put all of them. �When you look at what they produce from acres of solar panels and windmills, which are dependent on the wind blowing at a certain minimum speed even to work at all and then the noise they make disturbs the fauna of the area, what would be enough of them. �Add to that all the NIMBY of those who live where the windmills would work andyou have a problem, especially when the NIMBY folks are congressmen and senators (Kerry, Kennedy, Frank, Markey ring a bell?). �Then there is the storage and transportation problem of the product which is not working well yet either. �I can see doing research on these methods but I cannot see stopping the production of what we know works and the outlawing of other means of production which we know can produce what is required while the research is going on. �That is what has been going on with out congressmen and senators and the no-drilling legislation. �We hear that it will take 10 years to bring the wells on line - and we have been hearing this for years now. �If they had drilled when the subject first came up, the wells would be online now and we would not be dependent on foreign oil now but I guess our betters missed that point. Mark wrote: Gee dick there are not enough of them... On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net mailto:rhomp2...@earthlink.net rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: � � And they are not capable of meeting even a small percentage of the � � US use of electricity. �Nor will they be able to in the near future. � � I was talking about the carbon credits. �The credits are used to � � plant trees, not windmills. �Guess you missed that point. � � Mark wrote: � � �Dick, � � �Just what are you talking about. Alternative energy sources � � exist NOW. just go to Palm Springs and look at the hill sides... � � anybody can count the numbers of wind turbines.. no science � � involved. A geo-thermal plant is easily identified as is a � � nuclear plant and a hydoelectric dam, hearing people KNOW the � � difference between an electric car and a gas/diesel motor (the � � deaf look for the tail pipe or lack thereof) �There is NO mystery � � in accountability. You simply use oil profits to put itself out � � of business. � � �On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 9:36 AM, dick thompson � � rhomp2...@earthlink.net mailto:rhomp2...@earthlink.net rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: � � � � �How would you do that and how would you enforce it. � � � � �Reminds me of the carbon trade/carbon credits scam. �You pay � � � � x amount of dollars to plant trees somewhere and that gives � � � � you the right to trash the regulatory laws about energy use. � � � � At what point do you prove that those dollars actually � � � � planted trees that are going to be taken care of and replace � � � � the carbon you used up. �That part of the equation is � � � � missing. �Do you think that those peons who plant the trees � � � � are going to insure that they grow and prosper? �If you don't � � � � enforce the one side of the equation, then you do not have an � � � � equation at all, you have a scam, and that is what it is. � � � � Same principle with your suggestion. �I can throw x amount of � � � � dollars at alternate energy source research but unless it is � � � � actually tracked to make sure it is used as it is supposed to � � � � be then it is garbage. �Look at the AGW conference that was � � � � held earlier this year. �They held it in Bali and the � � � � attendees all flew in on their private jets for a week of � � � � swanning around a fancy resort and making soundbites about � � � � all the good they were doing. �Then they got back in their � � � � private jets and flew elsewhere to tell us we need to � � � � conserve energy and use one sheet of toilet paper and pay � � � � twice as much in gas tax and pay more for heating and cooling � � � � because it is for the good of the environment and for the � � � � cheee. �Thank you Algore. � � � � �THE
Re: Wish this info had been available before the bill was passed
Also window manufacturers will be winners. The truth be known, older cities have REAL problems with old gas lines, sewer lines, water supplies, bridges, roads, lake and river quality. Lawns are a real culprit. Etc. On Jun 27, 12:35�pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: [Get Copyright Permissions] http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 �E-Mail http://license.icopyright.net/g1/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Print http://license.icopyright.net/g2/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Save http://license.icopyright.net/s13/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Post http://license.icopyright.net/g3/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Get Photos http://license.icopyright.net/g5/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Get Reprints http://license.icopyright.net/s17/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 | Reuse Options http://license.icopyright.net/3.5721?icx_id=D9933DL86 Jun 27, 11:12 AM EDT Winners and losers emerge in climate bill By CHRIS KAHN AP Energy Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- In addition to raising energy prices, the climate legislation that's winding through Congress would create a parallel financial system with a carbon-based currency. The House on Friday narrowly passed landmark legislation meant to curb greenhouse gas emissions and create an energy-efficient economy, voting 219-212. President Barack Obama on Saturday urged senators to follow suit. Everyone from small farmers to nuclear energy companies would be forced to re-evaluate their place in the new order. Power plants, factories and refineries would feel the first impact if the federal government moves ahead with plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and by about 80 percent near the end of the century. The sharply debated bill's fate is unclear in the Senate. A major struggle is expected with 60 votes needed to overcome a certain Republican filibuster. How much it will affect other industries is still a matter of intense debate, though the primary winners and losers are already emerging. --- The Winners: Solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy companies, including nuclear, are some of the obvious winners in a carbon economy. In addition to the billions of federal stimulus dollars they expect to receive, those industries can expect to see a huge boost in investment as utilities and power companies are forced to cut their carbon emissions. Companies like Florida Power Light Co., Arizona Public Service, Southern California Edison and others are already investing in solar farms and other renewable energy projects, and they'll likely spend even more to increase the mix of carbon-neutral energy sources. Farmers also will find new ways to make money in a carbon economy. Carbon consultants like the International Carbon Bank Exchange in Florida see huge potential in agriculture for managing carbon emissions. Farmers that till their soil differently or apply new environmental techniques can get money by cooperating with a polluter as a carbon offset. Owners of large tracts of forest land also will get a lot of interest from the business community. Like farmers, environmental experts see them as a huge player in the carbon economy because of their natural ability to absorb carbon. Louis Blumberg, director of climate change for the Nature Conservancy's California chapter, envisions a system in which forest owners could make money simply by signing an agreement to cut down fewer trees for lumber. The Nature Conservancy did just that last year with the Conservation Fund, a nonprofit agency that owns about 24,000 acres of redwood and douglas fir forest northwest of San Francisco. The groups changed the logging schedule on the property, and the fund expects to receive about $2 million from Pacific Gas and Electric, which participates in a regional climate initiative similar to the one that the Waxman-Markey bill would create around the country. This is really a model of what can happen, Blumberg said. Property owners everywhere want to figure out a way to be part of this. --- The Losers: Anyone who pays an electric bill would likely feel the impact of climate legislation. Utilities will try to raise rates as they invest in cleaner-yet-more-expensive energy sources. Some have already announced plans to do so. Petroleum companies also may try to import more of their refined gas and heating oil from countries with no carbon law, which will raise costs. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Environmental Protection Agency both issued estimates of how the climate bill would affect energy costs. The CBO estimated the cost at $175 a year for the average household. The EPA forecasts $80 to $110 a year. The American Petroleum Institute disputed both estimates, saying the bill could cost the average household up to $3,300 by 2020. That is more than a few postage stamps, API President Jack Gerard said in a slap at Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass.
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
What would that party be called? Democrat Lite? Luckily we live in a country of free choice- or do we? I think you are going to have people burning down their older traditional homes and buying some land to build new homes that will meet the new energy standards/values/taxes. And there will be another flight from metro areas and school systems to avoid the corruption and gangs. But what do I know? Silly me!//I opposed both wars in Iraq and if the military and intelligence officers went crazy I guess that's their problem, isn't it? Do you know who they were dealing with? Has Iraqi oil paid for that adventure? Will Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Iran, North Korea mature into western style governments under Obama? I doubt it. But what do I know? Western governments are beginning to look just as looney.//I like to listen to Rush- his voice fills up the house, echos down hallwayswith the rustle of his papers, his chuckles. On the other hand, I am allergic to Obama and Michelle and Pelosi and Reid, etc. Luckily, we live in a free country- or do we? On Jun 27, 11:29�am, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Rigsy: Palin, Cheney and Limbaugh rattle our political bones. I disagree that these individuals have been given fair treatment by the media/liberal... I disagree Rigsy. Palin is a prime example of the reason all us Moderates went Democrat. That the GOP let's Cheney off the leash, is just plain stupid. It was Bush /Cheney, their policies, lies and complete disregard for the Constitution that turned Reagan Democrats and Moderates away from the GOP in the first place. Now you've got Cheney going around talking about what a great thing waterboarding someone 20 times a day was. I can tell you / prove from personal experience that what happened and Abu Graihb and Git-mo had NOTHING to do with gaining intel or protecting the country. What an ass and embarrassment to the Nation Cheney is. Limbaugh? You really want Limbaugh to be considered as a reason for Independents to take a serious look at the GOP? Wow. So then the phrase Party of Exclusion is pretty accurate because no one but the Extreme Right would vote for a party that continues to let that whackjob hypocrite be their defacto leader. I would LOVE to see the old-school GOP but I guess if nothing else, this new version might make room for a viable, Moderate thrid party. On Jun 26, 8:10�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: whipping boys and girls who are are not interested in checks and balances. How many Mitt Romneys are out there that wish to spend personal fortune, time and exposure to slime tactics? �Not many. But I think the Democrats may be in for a reaction vote as they over-reach themselves and the public wakes up from their snooze. Palin draws the claws of the rich bitches- she is too real. They have a pop star president, instead- a South Side Chicago political thug. On Jun 26, 7:11 pm, ConservativeJack jackconservat...@gmail.com wrote: I was extremely impressed with Sarah Palin when I saw her at the GOP convention. But afterward, I found her to be a prime example of why Conservatives and the GOP are getting a bad reputation. She seems to have absolutely no concern about being caught in lies, can't answer simple questions (blaming it on editing is a specious argument) and her hypocrisy sickens me. That she, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are used as examples of what Conservatism is now supposed to be, is an abomination and if allowed to continue, will inevitibly lead to the extinction of our party. It is my hope that Mitt Romney or someone with a measurable level of intellect and honesty, will come forward to lead our party. On Jun 26, 6:19 am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong, character-driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Sarah Palin At High Noon By Lloyd Marcus I just watched the classic movie High Noon (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
goes wrong? Whoever is on watch at the time. I laugh when people try to blame Clinton. idiots who know zip about intel. it was Bush Cheney's fault. Period. When you get 9 months of Rich Clarke screaming about OBL and a week's notice about methodology, and can't connect the dots, it's because you're an idiot. And it's your fault. To say they did a good job because they didn't blow it a SECOND time, it just foolish. Based on that logic, they are only second in effectiveness to every president since Roosevelt. Okay, time to get off my soapbox and take the wife and daughter shopping at the mall (ugh!). If you want specifics on what a professional trying to get intel from subjects at Gitmo would have done differently, let me know and I'll throw out another page or two... F On Jun 27, 1:39�pm, Keith In Tampa keithinta...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: �I can tell you / prove from personal experience that what happened and Abu Graihb and Git-mo had NOTHING to do with gaining intel or protecting the country. == Hello Fredrick The Moderate, and welcome to PoliticalForum! Uhm..We'll all sit right here, atwitter with excitement and anticipation, awating your proof from personal experience, that the former Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques did not gain us intelligence or protect our Nation. I say that it did, and the evidence is overwhelming that these tactics worked. What an ass and embarrassment to the Nation Cheney is. Limbaugh? You really want Limbaugh to be considered as a reason for Independents to take a serious look at the GOP? Wow. So then the phrase Party of Exclusion is pretty accurate because no one but the Extreme Right would vote for a party that continues to let that whackjob hypocrite be their defacto leader. I would LOVE to see the old-school GOP but I guess if nothing else, this new version might make room for a viable, Moderate thrid party. On Jun 26, 8:10 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: whipping boys and girls who are are not interested in checks and balances. How many Mitt Romneys are out there that wish to spend personal fortune, time and exposure to slime tactics? �Not many. But I think the Democrats may be in for a reaction vote as they over-reach themselves and the public wakes up from their snooze. Palin draws the claws of the rich bitches- she is too real. They have a pop star president, instead- a South Side Chicago political thug. On Jun 26, 7:11 pm, ConservativeJack jackconservat...@gmail.com wrote: I was extremely impressed with Sarah Palin when I saw her at the GOP convention. But afterward, I found her to be a prime example of why Conservatives and the GOP are getting a bad reputation. She seems to have absolutely no concern about being caught in lies, can't answer simple questions (blaming it on editing is a specious argument) and her hypocrisy sickens me. That she, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are used as examples of what Conservatism is now supposed to be, is an abomination and if allowed to continue, will inevitibly lead to the extinction of our party. It is my hope that Mitt Romney or someone with a measurable level of intellect and honesty, will come forward to lead our party. On Jun 26, 6:19 am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong, character-driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Sarah Palin At High Noon By Lloyd Marcus I just watched the classic movie High Noon (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street. A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff. Fully aware of why the bad men were in town, the sheriff could not arrest them
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Go kick your tires or your dog, Hollywood. Or read some history! On Jun 27, 5:03�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: rigs, Okay. What is the point you are attempting to make? I don't see where Fred was trying to imply that the Bush administration invented torture or warfare. So what are you trying to say that is a response to, or a comment on, his post? On Jun 27, 4:43�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: You might ask for a guidebook from Israeli interrogators. First of all you can speak or read their language and culture- a flaw of Columbus. The Spanish and British were brutal conquerors- always. The Romans could also be brutal. Etc. Blah-blah history of human warfare. Our Civil War. I suppose the firebombings of civilian cities in WWII and dropping the A-bomb on paper and wood cities was an act of mercy, was it? Anyway I guess we retrieved a piece of our soul with the Marshall Plan. Made up for the centuries of brute treatment of Indian Nations.The millions who have died in this game of war and conquest are disgusting. On Jun 27, 4:19 pm, Frederick The Moderate frederickshel...@gmail.com wrote: Keith in Tampa: Uhm..We'll all sit right here, atwitter with excitement and anticipation, awating your proof from personal experience, that the former Administration's enhanced interrogation techniques did not gain us intelligence or protect our Nation. I say that it did, and the evidence is overwhelming that these tactics worked. Keith, I don't know if there is a place on the net or somewhere to research what I did in the military: Interrogation / Counter- Interrogation (among other things). I don't want to get too long-winded or technical so I'll do my best to be succinct and lucid. 1. Physical torture pretty much never works. I laughed whenever I saw idiot congressmen asking questions like What if there was one hour.. and a nuke... and Jack Bauer! etc... Life is not tv. In that situation, the bad guy always gives mis0information and watches Jack rush off to save Chicago while the bomb is in Denver. The problem with physical torture is that it is the ONLY kind of harsh interrogation that virtually everyone expects / prepares for. And what is always given, is a combination of truth and lies. Just enough to be more damaging than good. 2. Before any techniques are employed by a professional, a psych profile is done. The reasons that people convert to assets for us are the same reasons that people commit sociopathic (terrorist) acts. The three most common are 1. Ideology 2. Revenge and 3. Money. With Terrorists, numbers 1 2 are the usual motivators. Physically torturing these individuals will only prove to them that they are right and strengthen their resolve. Imagine the most patriotic, Right Wing Southern Baptist being captured by Afghans and asked for information that would destroy America. Torture would have them dying in the name of Jesus and martyring themselves for America the beautiful. Or just imagine yourself under those circumstances. 3. So once you have a professional do a pysch profile, you may not get accurate intel for a while but it won't be long before you know whether you have someone who is the real deal or a dupe caught in the crossfire. A real threat will can't help but display some level of preparation for counter-interrogation. We had people at Git-mo for years and let them go. Worse, some of the wrong people were let go. It is obvious that the people doing the interrogating at Abu Graihb and Git-mo were not professionals. This was not about protecting the nation or gathering intel. 4. Effective interrogation never involves repeatedly using the same technique. Repetition results in psychological preparation and desensitizing of the subject. If you repeatedly shock two rats but turn on a red light just before the shocks for one, the one with preparation of what's comeing will live 3 - 4 times longer. No professional would waterboard someone 30 or even 5 times a day, if they were trying to gather accurate intel. Physical duress is never as effective as psychological manipulation. There are techniques I can describe that I would employ for such a subject but they're not exactly light reading. But one thing is obvious: the people doing the interrogating at Abu Graihb and Git-mo were not professionals. This was not about protecting the nation or gathering intel. All Bush / Cheney did was create the perfect recruiting tool for terrorists. They took what OBL said we were like and made it real. They eliminated any difference between us and Saddam Hussein (remember all the justification after we found out there were no WMD's?: Well, he imprisons people without a chance for trial! He tortures them! His political enemies just disappear!). 5. The reason we used
Re: a little bad taste for you
You forgot Ed! Poor Baba Walters interviewed the wrong death to be- she is such a vulture of culture. On Jun 26, 7:57�am, bruce majors bruce.maj...@gmail.com wrote: �jackson fawcett.jpg 123KViewDownload --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Very interesting to check out the opinions of wealthy Democrats and MSM regarding Sarah Palin. I will never vote for another Democrat- ever. On Jun 26, 8:19�am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong, character-driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Sarah Palin At High Noon By Lloyd Marcus I just watched the classic movie High Noon (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street. A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff. Fully aware of why the bad men were in town, the sheriff could not arrest them because they had not broken any laws. Waiting is not illegal. Desperate, the sheriff interrupted a church service to solicit help. After much debate, the ungrateful town folks declined. They even suggested the sheriff get out of town hoping the trouble would follow him. The sheriff contemplated their recommendation. He began saddling his horse, but something inside would not allow him to run away. Heroically, the sheriff faced the bad guys and won! I thought of another strong, gutsy, bold, stand-on-principles hero, Sarah Palin, in her own modern day version of High Noon. Sheriff Palin rode into America Town on a white horse with conservative guns blazing and saved a dead McCain campaign. She brought hope to weary and battered conservative town folks and gave them a reason to vote. Outlaw Obama and his posse, the hate filled liberal media/Democrat gang, came to town a gunnin' to politically eliminate Sheriff Palin. They ambushed her at Miss Katie Couric's CBS saloon. Though wounded numerous times, Sheriff Palin survived. She bravely stood tall and rode high in the saddle while ungrateful, weak kneed Republican town folks ran for cover, hid in their homes and peeked nervously through the curtains. Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong character driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Recently, the libs sent an old washed up gunslinger, the Letterman Kid, to challenge Sheriff Palin to a shoot out. Palin planted two bullets between the pathetic old dude's wrinkly eyes before he could un-holster his gun. Despite Sheriff Palin's courage and willingness to fight, Obama and his posse rule America Town. They are in the process of taking over everything! Obama took over the livery stable and banned horses. While he and his posse continue riding horses, we town folks are forced to ride miniature ponies. But in the spirit of what has made America Town great, an uprising is a brewin'. A huge conservative posse is building daily. Our first battle will be in 2010 to win back America Town's House and Senate. Then, in 2012, God willing and the creek don't rise, Sheriff Palin will lead us to victory in the battle of Little Big Washington DC. Years earlier, another great lawman cleaned up America Town, Sheriff Ronald Reagan. After Sheriff Palin sweeps out the Obama gang, perhaps once again, we will be as what Sheriff Reagan affectionately called us, a shining city on a hill. Lloyd Marcus is the Singer/Songwriter of the American Tea Party Anthem and President, NAACPC (National
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
A person votes everyday. What they watch, listen to. What they refuse to buy, invest in. Americans no longer trust the snakes in Washington, D.C., New York and Hollow-wood. They are saving more to survive and pay enormous increases in property taxes to make sure the give-me's get their benefits- courtesy of US! It is a truth they -Blacks and illegal Latinos- know nothing of the labor and hardship of persons who built this country- Europeans. They simply suck up the wealth like drunks. On Jun 26, 8:19�am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong, character-driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Sarah Palin At High Noon By Lloyd Marcus I just watched the classic movie High Noon (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street. A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff. Fully aware of why the bad men were in town, the sheriff could not arrest them because they had not broken any laws. Waiting is not illegal. Desperate, the sheriff interrupted a church service to solicit help. After much debate, the ungrateful town folks declined. They even suggested the sheriff get out of town hoping the trouble would follow him. The sheriff contemplated their recommendation. He began saddling his horse, but something inside would not allow him to run away. Heroically, the sheriff faced the bad guys and won! I thought of another strong, gutsy, bold, stand-on-principles hero, Sarah Palin, in her own modern day version of High Noon. Sheriff Palin rode into America Town on a white horse with conservative guns blazing and saved a dead McCain campaign. She brought hope to weary and battered conservative town folks and gave them a reason to vote. Outlaw Obama and his posse, the hate filled liberal media/Democrat gang, came to town a gunnin' to politically eliminate Sheriff Palin. They ambushed her at Miss Katie Couric's CBS saloon. Though wounded numerous times, Sheriff Palin survived. She bravely stood tall and rode high in the saddle while ungrateful, weak kneed Republican town folks ran for cover, hid in their homes and peeked nervously through the curtains. Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong character driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Recently, the libs sent an old washed up gunslinger, the Letterman Kid, to challenge Sheriff Palin to a shoot out. Palin planted two bullets between the pathetic old dude's wrinkly eyes before he could un-holster his gun. Despite Sheriff Palin's courage and willingness to fight, Obama and his posse rule America Town. They are in the process of taking over everything! Obama took over the livery stable and banned horses. While he and his posse continue riding horses, we town folks are forced to ride miniature ponies. But in the spirit of what has made America Town great, an uprising is a brewin'. A huge conservative posse is building daily. Our first battle will be in 2010 to win back America Town's House and Senate. Then, in 2012, God willing and the creek don't rise, Sheriff Palin will lead us to victory in the battle of Little Big Washington DC. Years
Re: Sarah Palin At High Noon
Palin, Cheney and Limbaugh rattle our political bones. I disagree that these individuals have been given fair treatment by the media/liberal whipping boys and girls who are are not interested in checks and balances. How many Mitt Romneys are out there that wish to spend personal fortune, time and exposure to slime tactics? Not many. But I think the Democrats may be in for a reaction vote as they over-reach themselves and the public wakes up from their snooze. Palin draws the claws of the rich bitches- she is too real. They have a pop star president, instead- a South Side Chicago political thug. On Jun 26, 7:11�pm, ConservativeJack jackconservat...@gmail.com wrote: I was extremely impressed with Sarah Palin when I saw her at the GOP convention. But afterward, I found her to be a prime example of why Conservatives and the GOP are getting a bad reputation. She seems to have absolutely no concern about being caught in lies, can't answer simple questions (blaming it on editing is a specious argument) and her hypocrisy sickens me. That she, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are used as examples of what Conservatism is now supposed to be, is an abomination and if allowed to continue, will inevitibly lead to the extinction of our party. It is my hope that Mitt Romney or someone with a measurable level of intellect and honesty, will come forward to lead our party. On Jun 26, 6:19�am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong, character-driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding insult in injury, Sheriff Palin looks mighty fine in her jeans. Sarah Palin At High Noon By Lloyd Marcus I just watched the classic movie High Noon (again). Gary Cooper played a brave sheriff who brought law and order to his town. As one woman said, He made it safe for a decent woman to walk down the street. A recently released outlaw was coming back to town on the noon train to deliver vengeance against the sheriff who put him away. His gang of three arrived early to help their leader take out the sheriff. Fully aware of why the bad men were in town, the sheriff could not arrest them because they had not broken any laws. Waiting is not illegal. Desperate, the sheriff interrupted a church service to solicit help. After much debate, the ungrateful town folks declined. They even suggested the sheriff get out of town hoping the trouble would follow him. The sheriff contemplated their recommendation. He began saddling his horse, but something inside would not allow him to run away. Heroically, the sheriff faced the bad guys and won! I thought of another strong, gutsy, bold, stand-on-principles hero, Sarah Palin, in her own modern day version of High Noon. Sheriff Palin rode into America Town on a white horse with conservative guns blazing and saved a dead McCain campaign. She brought hope to weary and battered conservative town folks and gave them a reason to vote. Outlaw Obama and his posse, the hate filled liberal media/Democrat gang, came to town a gunnin' to politically eliminate Sheriff Palin. They ambushed her at Miss Katie Couric's CBS saloon. Though wounded numerous times, Sheriff Palin survived. She bravely stood tall and rode high in the saddle while ungrateful, weak kneed Republican town folks ran for cover, hid in their homes and peeked nervously through the curtains. Why are Obama and his gang so committed and desperate to destroy Palin? Could it be they recognize her destiny, like that of Moses, to set her people free? And why is she so despised by them? Obama's gang hate Palin for all the reasons we love her. Sheriff Palin is a good, decent and strong character driven conservative leader. Palin also believes in God. Such humility and virtues are as repulsive to liberals as showing Dracula the cross. Something that sticks in the craw of many liberal women is that in their youth, they brought into the feminist rhetoric that women's liberation means no husband and family. Tragically, they find themselves aging and alone. Meanwhile, this conservative woman has it all: great career, fine family and a husband who loves and respects her. Adding
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
LOL On Jun 25, 3:35�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jun 24, 9:37�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Who was paying for FDR's mistress? Eleanor, I think. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
The pillory and stocks of public confession- ridiculous. On Jun 25, 3:35�am, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jun 24, 9:37�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Who was paying for FDR's mistress? Eleanor, I think. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
Accuracy has nothing to do with lust. On Jun 25, 7:54�am, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: As far as Clintons... Monica said she gave it away, then swalllowed. JFK was noted for using his own money while in office and FDR had a dear friend that was at one time his Mistress, His daughter Anna invited Mrs. Rutherford to Hot Springs and was the pimp for those that think the affair still raged. You could at least try for a little accuracy. On Jun 24, 7:37�pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Who was paying for FDR's mistress? Or JFK's? Or Clinton's? You Democrats are such hypocrites it's a joke. On Jun 24, 5:05 pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: Not only was Sanford getting screwed in Argentina he was also screwing the South Carolina tax payers who unknowingly paid for that trip with their tax dollars. http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/06/sanfords-south-american-sojourns-tax...Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
Good heavens! Who paid for Solomon? Who cares? On Jun 25, 8:12�am, Mark markmka...@gmail.com wrote: It certainly had NOTHING to do with your post. I do agree other than hitting the right hole accuracy has nothing to do with lust it has a lot to do with reporting or commenting on what did or did not happen and who paid what for it though... strange you don't realize that, NOT !! On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 7:00 AM, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Accuracy has nothing to do with lust. On Jun 25, 7:54 am, THE ANNOINTED ONE markmka...@gmail.com wrote: As far as Clintons... Monica said she gave it away, then swalllowed. JFK was noted for using his own money while in office and FDR had a dear friend that was at one time his Mistress, His daughter Anna invited Mrs. Rutherford to Hot Springs and was the pimp for those that think the affair still raged. You could at least try for a little accuracy. On Jun 24, 7:37 pm, rigsy03 rigs...@yahoo.com wrote: Who was paying for FDR's mistress? Or JFK's? Or Clinton's? You Democrats are such hypocrites it's a joke. On Jun 24, 5:05 pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: Not only was Sanford getting screwed in Argentina he was also screwing the South Carolina tax payers who unknowingly paid for that trip with their tax dollars. http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/06/sanfords-south-american-sojourns-tax...text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - -- Mark M. Kahle, �,www.filacoffee.com- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
Watch out for the wishbone in that chicken soup, d.b. On Jun 25, 3:13�pm, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: On Jun 25, 3:00�pm, Mrs. Rabbit mrs.whiterab...@gmail.com wrote: How ya been db?? Awful. My doctor said I may have late-onset down syndrome. Neighbor Sam - the guy who's building a bunker under his his house - says I should try the Argentina treatment. Across the street, the widow Mrs. Feinberg - whose been acting odd lately - said she will cure me with her chicken soup. Meanwhile, my cat remains indifferent;) (Thanks for asking!) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
Leave him alone. On Jun 24, 5:05�pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: Not only was Sanford getting screwed in Argentina he was also screwing the South Carolina tax payers who unknowingly paid for that trip with their tax dollars. http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/06/sanfords-south-american-sojourns-tax... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sanford's South American sojourn taxpayer-funded
Who was paying for FDR's mistress? Or JFK's? Or Clinton's? You Democrats are such hypocrites it's a joke. On Jun 24, 5:05�pm, Fritz da Cat fritz.da.cat...@gmail.com wrote: Not only was Sanford getting screwed in Argentina he was also screwing the South Carolina tax payers who unknowingly paid for that trip with their tax dollars. http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/06/sanfords-south-american-sojourns-tax... --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What do you remember?
Everything.// Law and government are a straight jacket- a means of control. On Jun 20, 4:39 am, Cold Water coldwater...@gmail.com wrote: Excerpt: Some researchers... are increasingly questioning the way that the police, lawyers and the courts think about memory. They argue that this conventional model of memory – like a detailed photograph or video film – is fundamentally flawed. One of the most prominent of these researchers, Prof Elizabeth Loftus of the University of California at Irvine, even says that courts should have a new oath for witnesses: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, or whatever it is you think you remember? Memory research Now Prof Martin Conway, a cognitive psychologist at Leeds University, has drawn up a report for the British Psychological Society and the Law Society calling for a major rethink of memory and the law. He suggests his guidelines will help scientists who specialise in memory research when they testify as expert witnesses to help the courts assess the evidence. [...] What do you remember? By Rebecca Fordham Tuesday, 17 June 2008 09:48 UKhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7457653.stm --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: IRAN: Baker's Daily Dose
They did. On Jun 19, 9:23�pm, Hollywood jimmyrocket1...@hotmail.com wrote: d.b Damn good thing they can't vote in our elections, ain't it? On Jun 19, 8:56�pm, d.b.baker rth...@yahoo.com wrote: Obama's approval rating in Israel goes from 31% to 6% in one month: [Q] - The percentage of Jewish Israelis who see the Obama administration as being pro-Israel has declined from 31% to 6% since May 17 according to a JPost/Smith poll published in Friday's editions. In the intervening month, Obama gave his homily to the Muslim world in Cairo on June 4, and his administration has come into open conflict with Israel's leaders over a 'settlement freeze' and over the opening of the Gaza crossings without the release of kidnapped IDF corporal Gilad Shalit. --http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-approval-rating-in-is... Jews aren't stupid, so I'm surprised at the 6%. Regarding Obama, that's big number from people not dumb as nails.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What was all that about medicinal uses being passed and that it is not dangerous?
Any substance that affects the brain effects. The brain is our boss. On Jun 19, 9:15�pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: The point is that we have been reading all these stories about how pot is not dangerous to anyone, it does not affect the body long term, etc. � Now we find that it is just as cancer-causing as tobacco. �What affect will this have on all the marijuana for medicinal uses legislation that is in the hopper right now? Hollywood wrote: dick, So what is the point your trying to make? On Jun 19, 7:20 pm, dick thompson rhomp2...@earthlink.net wrote: http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/1961900.html- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: color change
It was Kelly Green. Lime green has more yellow. Emerald, more blue. Grass green is probably Green Oxide. On Jun 16, 12:49�pm, studio tl...@hotmail.com wrote: Ok, whose responsible for the lime green background colors? This is not the change I voted for. Lime green is not green green, like grass is green green. Besides hurting my eyes, it's most likely adding to climate change somehow. Or, is the point to make me blind so that I can't see the climate change? Tricky bastards you are. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ Thanks for being part of PoliticalForum at Google Groups. For options help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
