I don't care whose watch they were codified under -- they're still laws
allow for unlawful transfer of property.
Oh, I agree, but on this side of the border and prior to the elections, the
standard complaint was that the Enron debacle was the sole fault of the
Republicans. I was merely pointing out who was supposed to be minding the
store at the time.
I agree with John that on most issues there isn't much difference between
the two parties, but the Republican party does have a few redeeming planks
left - notably the charter violation issues, while the Democratic party has
Dan R Allen wrote:
> "John W. Redelfs" wrote:
> > For instance, to me a "socialist" is anyone who advocates government
> > redistribution of the wealth from those who produce wealth to those who
> > don't. Using that definition the Democratic party is definitely
> > by socialists. But then using that definition, the Republicans are
> > controlled by socialists. So what's the difference except in rhetoric?
> Such as laws which allowed the workers of Enron to have their pension
> by the big brass....
> (sorry, I couldn't resist, although I'm sure John would actually agree).
> But weren't those laws modified under Clinton's watch? The robberies
> certainly were...
> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: email@example.com
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!