McCain to Obama, 2006, Whack!
Fred Stone
February 6, 2006
The Honorable Barack Obama
United States Senate
SH-713
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Obama:
I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private
assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to
negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you
approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to
use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you
were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit
on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political
leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and
the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing
me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which
explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm
embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to
interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely
used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more
noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make
the same mistake again.
As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold
hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I
fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with
Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out
a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force
to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the
consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees
of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further
from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could
be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be
reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not
be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular
committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge
Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged
Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate's return in January.
Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform
proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson
and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence
that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the
legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I
explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many
times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem
or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill
Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round
of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many
other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations.
We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability
to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both
parties will work together to address our failings.
As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand
how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this
issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over
your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to
appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority
for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senate
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
Bill Baker
message news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>
> February 6, 2006
>
> The Honorable Barack Obama
> United States Senate
> SH-713
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Senator Obama:
>
> I would like to apologize
Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can only be a
good thing.
--
Bushism 12-20:
"The true strength of America happens when a neighbor loves a neighbor just
like they'd like to be loved themselves."
--Elizabeth, New Jersey; June 16, 2003
Fred Stone
> On Friday 16 May 2008 02:23 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
> in message news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>>
>> February 6, 2006
>>
>> The Honorable Barack Obama
>> United States Senate
>> SH-713
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Senator Obama:
>>
>> I would like to apologize
>
> Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can only be
> a good thing.
Getting spanked like a three-year-old by a RINO like McCain is a *very*
good thing. But not good for Obambi.
Bill Baker
message news:<482e011b$0$11216$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:07:40 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>
>> On Friday 16 May 2008 02:23 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>> in message news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>>>
>>> February 6, 2006
>>>
>>> The Honorable Barack Obama
>>> United States Senate
>>> SH-713
>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>
>>> Dear Senator Obama:
>>>
>>> I would like to apologize
>>
>> Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can only be
>> a good thing.
>
> Getting spanked like a three-year-old by a RINO like McCain is a *very*
> good thing. But not good for Obambi.
Sure it is. Republicans are losing this year (see Louisiana, Illinois and
Mississippi's special elections). This is a *very* good year to be a
Democrat.
--
Bushism 8-28:
"And if you're interested in the quality of education and you're paying
attention to what you hear at Laclede, why don't you volunteer? Why don't
you mentor a child how to read?"
--St. Louis, Missouri; January 5, 2004
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>On Friday 16 May 2008 05:48 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote in
>message news:<482e011b$0$11216$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:07:40 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 02:23 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>>> in message news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>>>>
>>>> February 6, 2006
>>>>
>>>> The Honorable Barack Obama
>>>> United States Senate
>>>> SH-713
>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>
>>>> Dear Senator Obama:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to apologize
>>>
>>> Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can only be
>>> a good thing.
>>
>> Getting spanked like a three-year-old by a RINO like McCain is a *very*
>> good thing. But not good for Obambi.
>
>Sure it is. Republicans are losing this year (see Louisiana, Illinois and
>Mississippi's special elections). This is a *very* good year to be a
>Democrat.
Shut up. I'm waiting for Fred to predict how the Repubilcans will
trounce the Democrats this year so I can have updated sig.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
"FRED STONE YOU GOT PWNED. "
-laleeloolelo <at> yahoo, 12/28/2007
"Face it, Fred, you've been pwn3d."
-Bill Baker, 12/21/2007
Bill Baker
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in message
news:<pefs24tjlqmbc29ae...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 18:29:56 -0400, Bill Baker
> <wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
>>On Friday 16 May 2008 05:48 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote
>>in message news:<482e011b$0$11216$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:07:40 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 02:23 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>> wrote in message news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>> February 6, 2006
>>>>>
>>>>> The Honorable Barack Obama
>>>>> United States Senate
>>>>> SH-713
>>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Senator Obama:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to apologize
>>>>
>>>> Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can only
>>>> be a good thing.
>>>
>>> Getting spanked like a three-year-old by a RINO like McCain is a *very*
>>> good thing. But not good for Obambi.
>>
>>Sure it is. Republicans are losing this year (see Louisiana, Illinois and
>>Mississippi's special elections). This is a *very* good year to be a
>>Democrat.
>
>
> Shut up. I'm waiting for Fred to predict how the Repubilcans will
> trounce the Democrats this year so I can have updated sig.
You really think anything I say will prevent Fred from making such a
prediction?
--
Bushism 7-29/30:
"The trial lawyers are very politically powerful....But here in Texas we
took them on and got some good medical--medical malpractice."
--Waco, Texas; August 13, 2002
Fred Stone
news:uaidna-3_MZdl7PV...@earthlink.com:
> On Friday 16 May 2008 05:48 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
> wrote in message news:<482e011b$0$11216$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:07:40 -0400, Bill Baker wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday 16 May 2008 02:23 pm Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote in message
>>> news:<027920ed$0$25062$c3e...@news.astraweb.com>...
>>>
>>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>>>>
>>>> February 6, 2006
>>>>
>>>> The Honorable Barack Obama
>>>> United States Senate
>>>> SH-713
>>>> Washington, DC 20510
>>>>
>>>> Dear Senator Obama:
>>>>
>>>> I would like to apologize
>>>
>>> Doing something the opposite way a Republican wants to do it can
>>> only be a good thing.
>>
>> Getting spanked like a three-year-old by a RINO like McCain is a
>> *very* good thing. But not good for Obambi.
>
> Sure it is. Republicans are losing this year (see Louisiana, Illinois
> and Mississippi's special elections). This is a *very* good year to
> be a Democrat.
>
Which means that *next year* will be a very bad year to be an American.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to
rule." - H L Mencken
Free Lunch
George W Bush was the most incompetent president in American history. I
take it that you expect the fallout from his worthless administration to
continue to harm our country for years to come.
Fred Stone
news:5oot24ltcvn438obj...@4ax.com:
I expect that Democrat policies predicated on the idea that George W
Bush's policies need to be reversed will harm our country for years to
come.
--
Free Lunch
Which horribly misguided policies don't need to be reversed?
Yang, AthD (h.c)
<wba...@postini.spamcon.org> wrote:
Well, no. :-)
But I am trying goose him along
Fred Stone
Don't hold your breath. The Repubs seem to have a death wish.
Fred Stone
Bush's tax policy should not be reversed. Giving the Democrats more taxes
to spend just means that they'll spend more and won't reduce the deficit.
Education policy. If anything, NCLB needs to be made *tougher*.
Secret ballots in union elections. Unions should not be allowed to
pressure workers to sign up.
And that's not the whole list, just the ones that I feel like listing.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Free Lunch
Republicans spend as much as Democrats, but Democrats have the integrity
to pay for their spending.
>Education policy. If anything, NCLB needs to be made *tougher*.
Whatever that means. The problem with NCLB isn't the lack of toughness,
but the lack of a coherent policy.
>Secret ballots in union elections. Unions should not be allowed to
>pressure workers to sign up.
But employers should?
Apostate
We seem already to have a non-concession concession: "You bastards win, and history will rue
the day!"
--
Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Deputy Director in Charge of Being Paid, Department of Redundancy Department
"Mr. Worf, set phasers on "Fuck You" and fire at will."
. -- Doc Smartass
e-mail to X-mail-to, after demunging
Fred Stone
Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
their spending".
>>Education policy. If anything, NCLB needs to be made *tougher*.
>
> Whatever that means. The problem with NCLB isn't the lack of toughness,
> but the lack of a coherent policy.
>
Where "coherent policy" is defined as "whatever the teachers unions want".
>>Secret ballots in union elections. Unions should not be allowed to
>>pressure workers to sign up.
>
> But employers should?
>
There are already laws in place to prevent employers from pressuring
employees. Secret ballots are the only way to prevent union organizers
from pressuring employees.
>>And that's not the whole list, just the ones that I feel like listing.
--
JTEM
> Bush's tax policy should not be reversed. Giving
> the Democrats more taxes to spend just means
> that they'll spend more and won't reduce the deficit.
Clinton didn't simply reduce the deficit, he eliminated it.
> Education policy. If anything, NCLB needs to be made *tougher*.
NCLB is a FEDERAL MANDATE placed on the states.
As I recall, you psychos are AGAINST federal mandates
placed on the states...
Secondly, NCLB can't achieve the goals it is supposed
to achieve. It's impossible for scores to keep improving
indefinitely. Also, we're talking about kids, not machines.
Of course there's normal variation, and scores are going
to flucuate from year to year... the end result is that
school systems will be punished for normal & expected
variations.
> Secret ballots in union elections. Unions should not
> be allowed to pressure workers to sign up.
We don't even have that assurance for our Presidential
primaries!
Funny how the only "Election reform" you support are
for the unions...
Free Lunch
Collecting taxes is better than lying.
Fred Stone
> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>>Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
>>their spending".
>
> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>
Spending less is better than taxing more.
Bill Baker
in message news:<Xns9AA1640E9C...@216.151.153.34>...
Only if you're a traitor. Or a Republican. But I repeat myself...
--
<+mOrphz> damn it :/
<@Lego> damn it :/
<+mOrphz> stop that
<@Lego> stop that
<+mOrphz> :D
<@Lego> :D
<+mOrphz> Lego smells
<@Lego> Lego smells
<+mOrphz> /quit
quit: (Lego) (~leet@apex|Lego.user.gamesnet) (Quit)
Free Lunch
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>>Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
>>>their spending".
>>
>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>
>
>Spending less is better than taxing more.
But that isn't an option. It hasn't been an option since Ronald Reagan
and his voodoo economics undermined a century of Republican commitment
to fiscal responsibility. Now the Republicans are less fiscally
responsible because they don't want to pay for their toys. We get the
choice of Republicans who spend and borrow to add trillions to the
national debt or of Democrats who try to collect enough taxes to pay for
the spending they undertake.
Fred Stone
So neither Democrats nor Republicans are *capable* of spending less?
DanielSan
> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>
>
>
>>> Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
>>> their spending".
>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>
>
> Spending less is better than taxing more.
>
Spending less....on what, though?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "I was against gay marriage until I realized *
* that I didn't have to have one." *
* --James Carville *
****************************************************
Free Lunch
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:29:09 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2008 23:24:14 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>>Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
>>>>>their spending".
>>>>
>>>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Spending less is better than taxing more.
>>
>> But that isn't an option. It hasn't been an option since Ronald Reagan
>> and his voodoo economics undermined a century of Republican commitment
>> to fiscal responsibility. Now the Republicans are less fiscally
>> responsible because they don't want to pay for their toys. We get the
>> choice of Republicans who spend and borrow to add trillions to the
>> national debt or of Democrats who try to collect enough taxes to pay for
>> the spending they undertake.
>
>So neither Democrats nor Republicans are *capable* of spending less?
Both are capable of doing so, but both choose not to because they know
that spending is what their voters want.
DanielSan
I think of it this way:
Jim and Steve are living in a house.
Jim spends $1000 on a new television.
Steve spends $1050 on a new roof.
Steve spent more.
Jim spent less.
Which is the better use of the money, though?
(Hint: Jim is a Republican and Steve's a Democrat.)
Fred Stone
But they didn't need a new roof. Steve only spent the money because his
cousin is in the roofing business and "needed the work".
Fred Stone
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>> Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay
>>>> for their spending".
>>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>>
>>>
>> Spending less is better than taxing more.
>>
>>
> Spending less....on what, though?
On things that aren't absolutely essential.
Free Lunch
>On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:39:49 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>
>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay
>>>>> for their spending".
>>>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Spending less is better than taxing more.
>>>
>>>
>> Spending less....on what, though?
>
>On things that aren't absolutely essential.
Have you been bitching to the Republicans for their waste?
Fred Stone
Yes, Lunchie, I have. Haven't you read any of my threads about "Trent
Loot" or the other Porkbusters stuff?
Free Lunch
>On Sun, 18 May 2008 08:51:55 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>
>> On 18 May 2008 11:56:40 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 17 May 2008 20:39:49 -0700, DanielSan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Fred Stone wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay
>>>>>>> for their spending".
>>>>>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Spending less is better than taxing more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Spending less....on what, though?
>>>
>>>On things that aren't absolutely essential.
>>
>> Have you been bitching to the Republicans for their waste?
>
>Yes, Lunchie, I have. Haven't you read any of my threads about "Trent
>Loot" or the other Porkbusters stuff?
Yet you still support them, even though they have lied to us, acted as
hypocrites, shown that they are incapable of running a government,
started useless wars that they cannot end, weakened our national
security, support incompetence in the White House, and let the poor
starve so the rich can get richer.
I cannot understand how anyone can be so foolish as to vote for a
Republican this year.
V
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/07/politics/main1289745.shtml
>
> February 6, 2006
>
> The Honorable Barack Obama
> United States Senate
> SH-713
> Washington, DC 20510
>
> Dear Senator Obama:
>
> assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to
> negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you
> approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to
> use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you
> were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit
> on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political
> leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and
> the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing
> me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which
> explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm
> embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to
> interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely
> used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more
> noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make
> the same mistake again.
>
> As you know, the Majority Leader has asked Chairman Collins to hold
> hearings and mark up a bill for floor consideration in early March. I
> fully support such timely action and I am confident that, together with
> Senator Lieberman, the Committee on Governmental Affairs will report out
> a meaningful, bipartisan bill.
>
> You commented in your letter about my "interest in creating a task force
> to further study" this issue, as if to suggest I support delaying the
> consideration of much-needed reforms rather than allowing the committees
> of jurisdiction to hold hearings on the matter. Nothing could be further
> from the truth. The timely findings of a bipartisan working group could
> be very helpful to the committee in formulating legislation that will be
> reported to the full Senate. Since you are new to the Senate, you may not
> be aware of the fact that I have always supported fully the regular
> committee and legislative process in the Senate, and routinely urge
> Committee Chairmen to hold hearings on important issues. In fact, I urged
> Senator Collins to schedule a hearing upon the Senate's return in January.
>
> Furthermore, I have consistently maintained that any lobbying reform
> proposal be bipartisan. The bill Senators Joe Lieberman and Bill Nelson
> and I have introduced is evidence of that commitment as is my insistence
> that members of both parties be included in meetings to develop the
> legislation that will ultimately be considered on the Senate floor. As I
> explained in a recent letter to Senator Reid, and have publicly said many
> times, the American people do not see this as just a Republican problem
> or just a Democratic problem. They see it as yet another run-of-the-mill
> Washington scandal, and they expect it will generate just another round
> of partisan gamesmanship and posturing. Senator Lieberman and I, and many
> other members of this body, hope to exceed the public's low expectations.
> We view this as an opportunity to bring transparency and accountability
> to the Congress, and, most importantly, to show the public that both
> parties will work together to address our failings.
>
> As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand
> how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this
> issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over
> your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to
> appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority
> for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> John McCain
> United States Senate
>
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa# 1369
> Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
> possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
>
> --
> Fred Stone
> aa# 1369
> Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without
> possessing merit"—P J O'Rourke
I feel sorry for Obama or who ever gets in.
And if the roof doesn't fall on him or her, the next pres wills surely
get hit with it.
And what do we do when things go bad? They blame it all on the pres.
Like he or she can pull crude and NG out their ass?
Sure oil goes up and down with the BS they hand us. Some of the BS is
just greedy excuses. Other times the BS is not BS and based in truth.
But, no matter how we cut it, fossil fuels are a non renewable
resource and we are using 31 billion barrels a year of crude
worldwide...and usage will only gets worse as time goes
by....'Chindia' is just starting out!
Maybe I should not feel bad for politicians. After all they are ego
based power hungry individuals. I imagine they all know about peak
oil. They probably view it as a game of musical chairs. Give me power
for a day and I only hope the roof falls in on the next guy and the
music wont stop on my presidency.
Mark K. Bilbo
With the Bush admin, we have *such* an embarrassment of riches in that
field...
Mark K. Bilbo
What kills me is he seems to think borrowing isn't using "other people's
money".
The national debt is the ultimate in "other people's money". People who
haven't even been *born* yet will have to pay...
Mark K. Bilbo
> Fred Stone wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 May 2008 17:48:23 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 May 2008 19:51:21 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>>> Where "integrity" is defined as "using other people's money to pay for
>>>> their spending".
>>> Collecting taxes is better than lying.
>>>
>>
>> Spending less is better than taxing more.
>>
>
> Spending less....on what, though?
Oh, you know, people. I mean, unless you mean bombs to kill them with...
Free Lunch
wrote:
Or unless they are very rich and want government contracts...
Fred Stone
Yet you still support Democrats, etcetera etcetera...
And show me one poor person in America who is starving and can't get food
assistance just by asking for it. Just one, lunchie. I'll wait.
Free Lunch
Yes, there are people who have managed to avoid starvation, but it's no
thanks to the Bush administration. Food banks are not government
programs and people are malnourished because they don't have adequate
food.
Meanwhile, the racist immigrant haters are doing their best to starve
immigrants.
Since when is turning the mentally ill out into the streets to live
rough a mental health care program? Some of those people have died,
either from exposure or from malnutrition.
Since when is spending billions on mercenaries, er, outsourcing, a
rational defense program. We've seen the utter failure of this approach,
but Republicans would rather have richer friends than a safe country.
Fred Stone
The government is not responsible when people don't spend their food
stamp money on cheap nourishing food.
> Meanwhile, the racist immigrant haters are doing their best to starve
> immigrants.
>
I don't know any racist immigrant haters. I know plenty of unracist
people who don't like seeing illegal immigrants flouting American law.
> Since when is turning the mentally ill out into the streets to live
> rough a mental health care program? Some of those people have died,
> either from exposure or from malnutrition.
>
That was Democrats who turned the mentally ill out into the streets
"because of their rights". And oh, by the way, there are food agencies
available for every one of those people. All they have to do is to show
up and ask for a meal. But since they're mentally ill but cannot be
confined for their own good *because of their rights* they end up worse
off.
> Since when is spending billions on mercenaries, er, outsourcing, a
> rational defense program. We've seen the utter failure of this approach,
> but Republicans would rather have richer friends than a safe country.
It's a very rational military policy, letting civilian contractors do the
jobs that don't require professional military personnel.
Geoff
> Which means that *next year* will be a very bad year to be an
> American.
I just knew you and Duke were pals.
Free Lunch
Food stamps aren't as good as you think.
>> Meanwhile, the racist immigrant haters are doing their best to starve
>> immigrants.
>>
>
>I don't know any racist immigrant haters. I know plenty of unracist
>people who don't like seeing illegal immigrants flouting American law.
Sure.
>> Since when is turning the mentally ill out into the streets to live
>> rough a mental health care program? Some of those people have died,
>> either from exposure or from malnutrition.
>>
>
>That was Democrats who turned the mentally ill out into the streets
>"because of their rights". And oh, by the way, there are food agencies
>available for every one of those people. All they have to do is to show
>up and ask for a meal. But since they're mentally ill but cannot be
>confined for their own good *because of their rights* they end up worse
>off.
The disaster was a joint operation of left and right. Both sides should
feel shame for their part in it.
>> Since when is spending billions on mercenaries, er, outsourcing, a
>> rational defense program. We've seen the utter failure of this approach,
>> but Republicans would rather have richer friends than a safe country.
>
>It's a very rational military policy, letting civilian contractors do the
>jobs that don't require professional military personnel.
Nonsense. Blackwater staff is paid very well. If we don't need them for
professional services, we are getting ripped off.
Fred Stone
I know they can buy plenty of food if you get basic staples and fresh
vegetables and cheap cuts of meat. They don't go very far if you're
buying prepared food and TV dinners.
>>> Meanwhile, the racist immigrant haters are doing their best to starve
>>> immigrants.
>>>
>>>
>>I don't know any racist immigrant haters. I know plenty of unracist
>>people who don't like seeing illegal immigrants flouting American law.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> Since when is turning the mentally ill out into the streets to live
>>> rough a mental health care program? Some of those people have died,
>>> either from exposure or from malnutrition.
>>>
>>>
>>That was Democrats who turned the mentally ill out into the streets
>>"because of their rights". And oh, by the way, there are food agencies
>>available for every one of those people. All they have to do is to show
>>up and ask for a meal. But since they're mentally ill but cannot be
>>confined for their own good *because of their rights* they end up worse
>>off.
>
> The disaster was a joint operation of left and right. Both sides should
> feel shame for their part in it.
>
>>> Since when is spending billions on mercenaries, er, outsourcing, a
>>> rational defense program. We've seen the utter failure of this
>>> approach, but Republicans would rather have richer friends than a safe
>>> country.
>>
>>It's a very rational military policy, letting civilian contractors do
>>the jobs that don't require professional military personnel.
>
> Nonsense. Blackwater staff is paid very well. If we don't need them for
> professional services, we are getting ripped off.
Nice equivocation there, Lunchie. I said "professional *military*
services". Blackwater provides *security*. You know, bodyguards and
convoy services.
Free Lunch
How much are they paid to rape?
Fred Stone
> On 19 May 2008 00:14:52 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 18 May 2008 18:42:59 -0500, Free Lunch wrote:
>>
>>> On 18 May 2008 19:12:12 GMT, Fred Stone <fsto...@earthling.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
<...>
>>>>It's a very rational military policy, letting civilian contractors do
>>>>the jobs that don't require professional military personnel.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. Blackwater staff is paid very well. If we don't need them
>>> for professional services, we are getting ripped off.
>>
>>Nice equivocation there, Lunchie. I said "professional *military*
>>services". Blackwater provides *security*. You know, bodyguards and
>>convoy services.
>
> How much are they paid to rape?
Nice of you to concede the argument so gracefully.
Mark K. Bilbo
And never mind that Governor Ronald Reagan was at the forefront of
turning people out of institutions in a GOP "cut the budget" move...
Mark K. Bilbo
More than our troops are paid for dying...