On 29 Oct 2008, at 05:04, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
...
For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there
are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of
attention. The core of it is this:
It's
At 12:04 AM Wednesday 10/29/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
...
For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there
are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of
attention. The core of it is
On 28 Oct 2008 at 5:54, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 27 Oct 2008 at 20:23, John Williams wrote:
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So, your view of democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have
for lunch?
Nicely put.
Not really. This election is a flock of sheep
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More important to me than
ideology is leadership; the ability to inspire people, the ability to
pick qualified subordinates and delegate authority, coolness under
pressure, decisiveness and so on.
If only he were likely to lead us somewhere worth going,
Doug Pensinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whose money is McCain going to use to pay all those bad mortgages he
promised to take care of?
I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses
taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the
bare minimum. Alas, few
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:55 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
If only he were likely to lead us somewhere worth going, rather than
into a future of wasting as much money as he can,
One of the ways in which Obama leads is that he resists the temptation to
question the motives of
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 7:30 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses
taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the
bare minimum.
So then how would we justify *any* government investments in roads,
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One of the ways in which Obama leads is that he resists the temptation to
question the motives of those with whom he disagrees. I see that you are
not thus encumbered.
LOL! Have you considered a career in comedy?
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So then how would we justify *any* government investments in roads, schools,
health care, defense and so forth?
Very carefully.
Do you oppose such investments?
Depends.
Without them, how can we be competitive as a nation?
I don't see any reason to be
On Oct 28, 2008, at 7:30 AM, John Williams wrote:
Government spending uses taxpayer dollars. That is why government
spending should be kept to the bare minimum.
You (and countless others) have put forward this claim again and
again. It all depends on how you define bare minimum, which is
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:
I don't mind paying taxes
Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law?
Was going to reply to this earlier but was interrupted by some
technical difficulties ..
I probably would, actually, if I had more margin between my
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[rationalizations deleted]
and even if I were able to
contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would
basically just be wasted at the moment.
The system
doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute what's
required and
On Oct 27, 2008, at 1:12 PM, John Williams wrote:
*huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez-
faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we
really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or
can we agree that there is a need to
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I believe that a government-run safety net is a social good to which
I am happy to contribute.
So you don't believe government spending should be kept to a minimum,
and you are happy to contribute. I'm curious, how much more than the
minimum required taxes do you
On Oct 27, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Lance A. Brown wrote:
Andrew Crystall said the following on 10/27/2008 8:40 PM:
On 27 Oct 2008 at 18:52, Lance A. Brown wrote:
William T Goodall said the following on 10/27/2008 7:23 AM:
Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias
instead
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:33 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
So you don't believe government spending should be kept to a minimum,
and you are happy to contribute. I'm curious, how much more than the
minimum required taxes do you contribute to the government?
Why would it be fair
On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Dave Land wrote:
Perhaps I didn't call Congress because I am just so sick and tired of
a system that couldn't possibly care less about what I think that it's
just not worth the effort.
For what it's worth, I live in an area represented by two very pro-
corporate
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you seriously
suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to
that extent?
There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government,
which obviously has little clue of what regulations make for an efficient
system. I
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why would it be fair to contribute more?
Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what
you want?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I was able to continue to buy the same insurance that I had when I
was employed
Of course, if the government weren't providing perverse incentives to
the health care market, you wouldn't be locked into buying health care
from an employer.
I think catastrophic
On Oct 28, 2008, at 9:50 AM, John Williams wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why would it be fair to contribute more?
Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what you want?
It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE
want, as expressed in the government that
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:50 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why would it be fair to contribute more?
Why would it be fair to force others to pay for what
you want?
Must you keep putting up the same straw man?
How about if we talk about
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE
want,
You may want it to be about what we want it to be about,
but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what I want.
If you don't like being forced to pay for what *I* want (to the
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:03 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Even worse, there are a bunch of absurd rules that make it
difficult for health insurance providers to compete on a national level,
and
so people who are unfortunate enough to live in certain states and not work
for an
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Must you keep putting up the same straw man?
As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell
other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to
yours, you will keep tilting at straw men.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's not forget people like my daughter, who cannot get health insurance at
any price, due to a pre-existing condition.
Right. No doubt you are living in poverty in order to take care of your
daughter,
since her health care is so expensive.
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Must you keep putting up the same straw man?
As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell
other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to
yours, you will
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:56 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Right. No doubt you are living in poverty in order to take care of your
daughter,
since her health care is so expensive.
I guess I opened the door for that, since I offered a personal
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ooo, a straw man to defend the use of a straw man! A meta-straw man!
Quite a salve to the conscience to convince oneself that one's own opinions
are so important that other's can be dismissed out of hand, I imagine.
Otherwise, I'm getting off the merry-go-round.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What, exactly, is your point?
Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health
care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though
you could contribute much more?
___
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 11:11 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What, exactly, is your point?
Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health
care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though
you could contribute much
On Oct 28, 2008, at 12:53 PM, John Williams wrote:
As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell
other people that their wants and opinions are subordinate to
yours,
I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that? Seeing a
pattern here (you've said this of me in
On Oct 28, 2008, at 11:11 AM, John Williams wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What, exactly, is your point?
Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health
care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though
you could contribute much more?
This is
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I see that you're still sending messages uncontaminated by logic.
Ah, I see you have a new rationalization technique.
Instead of calling anything that disagrees with you a straw man,
now you simply define your opinion as logical, and by extension,
disagreement
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is *precisely* how private insurance works: everyone pays
a little bit so that anyone who has enormous expenses can be
taken care of.
Except that a person can choose whether to buy insurance. Not
so with paying taxes.
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that?
When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth forcibly
taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar,
he has responded with straw man. Or complicated
On Oct 28, 2008, at 2:26 PM, John Williams wrote:
I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that?
When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth
forcibly
taken from me to pay for what other people want, or anything similar,
he has responded with straw man. Or
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and every time
you've responded, you've gone right back to the assertion that
taxation is essentially theft of your wealth
Taxation is forcibly taking people's money. Literally, my choice is to
pay taxes or have my wages and bank accounts confiscated or
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:13 PM, John Williams wrote:
What would make you think that I don't
believe you are entitled to an opinion?
Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about others.
___
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:26 PM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm sorry, what exactly makes you think is he doing that?
When I wrote that I think I have a right not to have my wealth forcibly
taken from me to pay for what other people want, or
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call it what you like, but it isn't rational discussion or argument.
Don't be so hard on yourself. You can occasional be rational.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about others.
I'm not sure I followed that. Does that mean that because I implied that
other people seemed to believe that I was not entitled to an opinion, that
you assumed that I believed that you are
On Oct 28, 2008, at 10:51 AM, John Williams wrote:
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It is about what WE
want,
You may want it to be about what we want it to be about,
but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what I want.
If you don't like
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[rationalizations deleted]
and even if I were
On Oct 28, 2008, at 3:31 PM, John Williams wrote:
Principle of reciprocity, since you've asserted the same about
others.
I'm not sure I followed that. Does that mean that because I implied
that
other people seemed to believe that I was not entitled to an
opinion, that
you assumed
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
it is what you do, as i have pointed out ad nausem...
Keep up the good work!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
did it ever occur to you that you are paying for
the enormous profits of health care providers and pharmaceutical companies?
why
does that not offend you?
For the same reason that you refusing to give me your land doesn't offend me.
Not
that I wouldn't
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath care
and medications...
And so that the quality goes down and no good new drugs and procedures
are developed.
___
On 28 Oct 2008 at 10:59, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 10:53 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Must you keep putting up the same straw man?
As long as you keep pretending that you have the right to tell
other people that their
On 28 Oct 2008 at 9:48, John Williams wrote:
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you seriously
suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to
that extent?
There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations imposed by the government,
which obviously has little
On 28 Oct 2008 at 14:57, John Williams wrote:
Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with
particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection?
So you don't in fact understand many of the alternatives to the
American
Andrew Crystall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So you don't in fact understand many of the alternatives to the
American system, right.
Not sure what you are talking about. But the Dutch seem to be doing the
bailout thing, too.
Straw man. Health insurance is not banking.
I guess you did not
At 04:48 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 28 Oct 2008 at 9:48, John Williams wrote:
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Are you seriously
suggesting that we should deregulate the entire financial system to
that extent?
There shouldn't be any arbitrary regulations
At 10:43 PM Monday 10/27/2008, John Williams wrote:
Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not original to me. Maybe Benjamin Franklin? Or at least I think I've
seen him credited with it, whether or not he actually said it.
Good memory. It sounded familiar, but I couldn't place it. The source
At 01:03 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote:
At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the
candidates platforms.
The question is not whether there is a difference between the
platforms of the two candidates and their parties but whether there
will be any
At 11:13 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Dave Land wrote:
I understand the need personally, having had a child who died from
brain cancer, the medical costs of which would have wiped out most
or all of our wealth. Were it not for a generous manager at Hewlett-
Packard, who suggested that my wife go on a
At 11:22 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:
I don't mind paying taxes
Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law?
Was going to reply to this earlier but was interrupted by some
technical difficulties ..
I probably
At 01:11 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, John Williams wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What, exactly, is your point?
Do you think other people should pay for your daughter's health
care while you should only contribute a small amount, even though
you could contribute much more?
How much should
At 03:47 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Wayne Eddy wrote:
- Original Message -
From: John Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:31 AM
Subject: Re: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED
At 04:04 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
there are a bunch of absurd rules that make
it difficult for health insurance providers to
compete on a national level, and so people who
are unfortunate enough to live in certain states
and not work for an employer must pay
At 04:08 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
It's not about what I want. Or what you want. It
is about what WE want,
You may want it to be about what we want it to be about,
but that's not what I want it to be about. I want what
I want.
If you don't like being forced to
On Oct 28, 2008, at 6:30 PM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 11:22 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:
I don't mind paying taxes
Do you voluntarily contribute more than is required by law?
Was going to reply to this earlier but was
: Redistribute the wealth
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[rationalizations deleted]
and even if I were able to
contribute over and above what I'm legally obligated to, it would
basically just be wasted at the moment.
The system
doesn't work that way, so for now at least, I contribute
John Williams wrote:
I'm not following your thought here. Government spending uses
taxpayer dollars. That is why government spending should be kept to the
bare minimum. Alas, few candidates campaign on such a platform. Easier
to get elected if you promise special interests a bunch of disguised
On 28 Oct 2008 at 18:09, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 01:03 AM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Andrew Crystall wrote:
At least in America this time there's an actual difference in the
candidates platforms.
The question is not whether there is a difference between the
platforms of the two
On 28 Oct 2008 at 17:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
So what's your take on the system being used in the Netherlands, with
particular reference to its elimination of Adverse Selection?
Can you point us to a for dummies explanation? Also, is there
anything about that system which might
On 29 Oct 2008, at 00:09, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
There is also the fact that to bring a new drug to market, with all
of the drugs that fail at some point during the development and
testing process, often costs the company on the order of $1 billion
before they sell one pill or treatment,
John Williams wrote:
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what we need is a single payer health system, so people can afford heath
care
and medications...
And so that the quality goes down and no good new drugs and procedures
are developed.
Unlike our present system, of
Jon Louis Mann wrote:
To bring a new drug to market, with all of
the drugs that fail at some point during
the development and testing process, often
costs the company on theorder of $1 billion
before they sell one pill or treatment,
much less making a profit.
Do you have any
Andrew Crystall wrote:
...
For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there
are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of
attention. The core of it is this:
It's a system of obligatory private health insurance. The insurance
companies (and over a dozen
At 09:50 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
what it comes down to is choosing the lesser evil...
As some have pointed out, the lesser of two evils is still evil.
. . . ronn! :)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
At 09:41 PM Tuesday 10/28/2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
To bring a new drug to market, with all of
the drugs that fail at some point during
the development and testing process, often
costs the company on theorder of $1 billion
before they sell one pill or treatment,
much less making a
On 28 Oct 2008 at 23:30, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
...
For dummies, okay. It's a new system, introduced in 2006 and there
are still minor tweaks going on, but it's attracted a lot of
attention. The core of it is this:
It's a system of obligatory private health
On 27 Oct 2008, at 03:12, John Williams wrote:
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So people who believe having an army, navy and air force to defend
the
country should make up the shortfall in funding when the pacifists
decide they'd rather not pay for that?
Defending the country is
William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias
instead of the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the
money of people who don't want to pay for it.
Perhaps there could. Still not redistributing wealth.
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:13 PM, Rceeberger wrote:
Even the Anchorage paper endorses Obama.
YeahI'd call that interestingG
xponent
Social Movement Maru
rob
Wait until Palin tries to fire the editorial board of the paper. :)
(um .. ma'am, they don't exactly work for you .. OK, that's it,
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008, Jon Louis Mann wrote:
not so, the public seems to have swallowed
the latest redistribution of wealth upwards.
More like the politicians stuffed it down our throats.
and the sheep accept it, like they accepted the
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Let's just put an end to ALL redistribution of wealth.
Let's start with the public schools and hospitals and keep going
with the
hatchet until nobody gets *anything* that they didn't pay for. Toll
booths
on every road and park!
Go put
On Oct 26, 2008, at 2:52 PM, John Williams wrote:
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We do need need someone to ride in and save us from disaster!
God will save us, if we have faith.
I can think of a segment of the population who are counting on God
saving them, who are very likely going
Their could be highly efficient and competitive private militias instead of
the inefficient government monopoly paid for by taking the money of people
who don't want to pay for it. Economic superstitions Maru
Black water is a highly private militia just like Andrew Carnegie’s forces
under Alan
On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Bryon Daly wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:39 PM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Anecdote seen on the internet:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that
read
'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how
far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even
years into the future.)
The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
market, or pretty much any market. Only
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:25 PM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why assume that government is
inevitably the worst way to accomplish anything?
Why assume that you or anyone can determine how other people's
money should be spent?
Same old straw
On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 7:24 AM, John Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who think
they know more than they actually do. So is the political industry. I
prefer the former -- at least they can't force me to waste my money.
I take
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I sure seem to have wasted some money involuntarily by trusting the
valuations created by incomprehensibly complex financial industry
instruments. How is that really different from trusting politicians?
Force does not equal choice.
Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Same old straw man. Consider me to have written the same answer.
You and that other guy with all your straw-man arguments. Maybe if you
got together you could form a support group and make progress towards
kicking your straw-man habits?
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:
the Fed can't really even estimate or predict how
far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend
even
years into the future.)
The Fed can't predict the housing market, the stock market, the CDS
market, or pretty much
On Oct 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, John Williams wrote:
the financial industry is made up of mature adults who know what
they're doing so we should trust them and not get in their way
The financial industry is made up of a bunch of greedy people who
think
they know more than they actually do.
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They can,
however, forecast based on mandatory reporting of transactions in most
markets, and make reasonably accurate assessments of the impact of
changes in those markets based on that forecasting.
ROTFLMAO
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*huge* if that, in all the times we've experimented with laissez-
faire market capitalism, has never been borne out in reality. Do we
really need to do this one more time expecting different results, or
can we agree that there is a need to have *some*
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most people, and I *am* involved in the securities market in a few
ways that would, pre-crash, have been considered very sound places to
put my money. And I'm pretty sure that when I steel myself to look at
the statements for those accounts, I'm going
I am convinced that if the Fed or the government, despite all evidence
to the contrary, actually did have some ability to predict or even make
good guesses at what markets are likely to do, then it would have little
need of regulation. If the Fed chairman or Treasury secretary would have
spoken up
I think government is best at taking other people's
money and spending it less
desirably than those who earned it. Most people agree with
me, judging by the
tiny number of people who voluntarily pay more taxes. But
believing you know
better than others how to best spend their money is
So you rank among the very wealthiest people in
America? Congratulations!
I doubt that,he's justjust another Joe...
The anecdote you posted depicts Obama as wanting to
take ALL the money from
the haves to give to the
have-nots - i.e.: that he's a socialist.
Wow, there you go again
why, am i in danger, from who...?
No idea. Since you are down to your last refuge, I was just
trying to help redistribute the refuges.
are you really that dense, john,
I've been told I'm denser than I look. Never measured it, though.
how many times do i need to spell it out?
Could be a
Jon Louis Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
who is this country really in danger from? I say the robber barons.
Down with the robber barons! Up with the robber comrades!
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
John Williams wrote:
Anecdote seen on the internet:
Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote
Obama, I need the money.' I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had
on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political
preference
On 10/27/2008 9:24:30 AM, John Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Bruce Bostwick [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the Fed
can't really even estimate or predict how
far the repercussions of that market collapse are going to extend even
years into the future.)
The Fed can't
predict the housing
Kevin B. O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In case you haven't noticed, John Galt is dead.
Have you got John Galt in a case?
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Rceeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
they can make what money you have worthless.
If they means the financial industry, then no, they cannot.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
