Obama Won!

[Linda Lee]

In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

[Barry OGrady]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
<lindag...@juno.com> wrote:

>In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

The US lost?

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 7, 4:34 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>

> <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>
> The US lost?

So you're as ignorant about politics as you are about the Scriptures.
The US missed electing a rich man (who has a yearly income of 3
million and is worth between 190 and 240 million dollars; the amount
is not known because much of it is in offshore accounts and Mormon
trusts to avoid taxes) who was so out of touch with the common people
and what it entails to earn a living and support oneself and one's
family, that when college students complained to him that they didn't
have money for the increasingly high costs of college tuition, he told
them they should borrow it from their parents. There's a solution!
Getting money for college at Harvard from his rich parents is what
Romney did! That's what everyone should do! Romney's the 'Marie
Antoinette' of US politics. Oh dear, the people have no bread? Let
them eat cakes! Cakes are better anyway! (Yes, I know Marie Antoinette
did not really say that.)

[Barry OGrady]

In that case its odd it was so close.

[Linda Lee]

Not everyone heard such things. And Romney said he ran because he
"cared". I think he cared to make sure the taxes on his wealth
remained low. Usually in a bad economy, the president doesn't win the
re-election, but many people realized Bush brought us to that low.

And I am sure many were as disgusted as I was with the DVD called
"Dreams from My Real Father - A Story of Reds and Deception" sent out
by the Republicans concerning Obama's "real father". The Republicans
fought a dirty lying fight, which they often do, but this was the
filthiest. They sent out millions of this DVD to many of the key
states which have high electoral vote counts. I got one and my brother
got one, so it was random, not based on who one voted for in the past.

It is a "documentary" arranged to be done by a man who has done
mockumentaries (mock documentaries) on Paul McCartney and Elvis
Presley. At first I assumed it was about Obama's biological father's
beliefs versus his stepfather's beliefs. No, it was a total
fabrication claiming Obama's real father was a communist from Hawaii,
who shaped him to be a secret communist and infiltrate the government,
narrated by a voice that sounded much like Obama's voice and speaking
as him, and filled with false quotes of how he wanted to change
capitalism to communism.

The DVD was shown at a film festival in Tampa, Florida during the
Republican National Convention.

Now Obama's no longer accused of being a secret Muslim, he's accused
of being a secret communist commissioned to infiltrate and bring down
America. And this man's (who they claim was his real father) only
connection to Obama was that he was a black man in Hawaii.
Supposedly, for some reason, Obama's mother always hid her
relationship with him, and they even claim Obama had plastic surgery
to hide his resemblance to him; it also reports he took nude pictures
of Obama's mother.

This is sheer bigotry at work. No politicians in this country are
accused of being secret Muslims and secret communists whose goal is to
overthrow the government and make us either a Muslim state or a
communist state. They claim Obama's a "mystery"; the real mystery to
them is they can't figure out how a black man (half-black anyway)
became President.

From http://frontpagemag.com/2012/mark-tapson/dreams-from-my-real-father-a-story-of-reds-and-deception/

"Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception is an
alternate theory to Obama’s autobiography. The 95-minute video from
Highway 61 Entertainment weaves together the facts with re-creations
and “reasoned speculation” in an effort to solve the mystery of
Obama’s origin. As director/writer/producer Joel Gilbert puts it, the
conclusion is that “the ‘Birthers’ have been on a fool’s errand. To
understand Obama’s plans for America, the question is not ‘Where’s the
birth certificate,’ but ‘Who’s the real father?’”

The film makes the case that Davis is Obama’s real father, both
biologically and ideologically, and that he indoctrinated Obama during
the latter’s formative years with a political grounding in Marxism and
an anti-white world view. It asserts, as Gilbert says in an interview,
that Obama’s election “was the culmination of an American socialist
movement that Frank Marshall Davis nurtured in Chicago and Hawaii, and
has been quietly infiltrating the US economy, universities, and media
for decades.”

Dreams from My Real Father is narrated over meandering violin-and-
piano music by Obama impersonator and voiceover actor Ed Law, who
chronicles the president’s life journey from birth to the present as
if Obama himself is speaking. Some dialogue is taken directly from
Davis and Obama’s writings, while some is “approximated.”

The documentary includes Obama’s indoctrination in Marxism by Davis,
his college years, his work as a Saul Alinsky-style community
organizer, his close association with the Bill Ayers family and Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, even his little-known role in the subprime mortgage
crisis, all the way through his campaigns and into the presidency. “My
mission in life,” says the Obama narrator, “is to fulfill the dreams
of my ‘ideological father’ – to replace capitalism with Communism.”" -
of course, "the narrator" is impersonating Obama's voice.

[Rod]

On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>

Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
Senate have been doing. This also mean that there will be NO new jobs
added to the economy because the wealthy who own the companies will
refuse to invest more venture capital as Obama wants to tax them more.

Obama will keep on borrowing money until the currency is worthless
and then the playing filed will be level, the money worthless, the
wealthy will now be flat broke and everyone will be dirt poor. The
system CAN and WILL collapse in on itself. We will essentially be forced
to become a socialist country because of our poverty. The
only way out of this mess is for the government to back drilling
on federal lands and then for them to sell the oil to other countries
and use the proceeds to pay down the loans.

We cannot keep borrowing money from everyone else forever. Sooner of
later they AND we will be OUT of funds and unable to make so much as
the interest payments on the loans.

--
It is said that a man with vengeance in his heart
should dig two graves; one for his enemy and the
other for himself.

[vince garcia]

Rod wrote:
>
> On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> > In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
> >
>
> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
> majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
> and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
> Senate have been doing. This also mean that there will be NO new jobs
> added to the economy because the wealthy who own the companies will
> refuse to invest more venture capital as Obama wants to tax them more.
>
> Obama will keep on borrowing money until the currency is worthless
> and then the playing filed will be level, the money worthless, the
> wealthy will now be flat broke and everyone will be dirt poor. The
> system CAN and WILL collapse in on itself. We will essentially be forced
> to become a socialist country because of our poverty.

I think you're right

The
> only way out of this mess is for the government to back drilling
> on federal lands and then for them to sell the oil to other countries
> and use the proceeds to pay down the loans.

They won't.

I have said for a while now, the only answer left to save some of the
country is secession, and a return to the foundational prinicples that
made this country great

["qqqmmm.-"]

"We should go back to the days of our forefathers where only property
owners could vote."

Really, those were the days when slaves and wives were chattel?

[Rob Strom]

On Nov 7, 4:34 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>

> <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> >In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>
> The US lost?

No.

God doesn't want the death of sinners, rather that they should repent
and turn from their sin. So rather than a Romney victory followed by
a storm of fire and brimstone, the country turned (just barely). Life
will still be a struggle, (there is still an obstructionist House of
Representatives), but I am only getting a snowstorm tonight rather
than
sulfur.

--
Rob Strom

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 7, 9:19 am, vince garcia <vggarci...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Rod wrote:
>
> > On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> > > In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>
> >    Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
> > majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
> > and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
> > Senate have been doing. This also mean that there will be NO new jobs
> > added to the economy because the wealthy who own the companies will
> > refuse to invest more venture capital as Obama wants to tax them more.
>
> >   Obama will keep on borrowing money until the currency is worthless
> > and then the playing filed will be level, the money worthless, the
> > wealthy will now be flat broke and everyone will be dirt poor. The
> > system CAN and WILL collapse in on itself. We will essentially be forced
> > to become a socialist country because of our poverty.
>
> I think you're right

The "wealthy who own the companies" aren't doing crap for the economy
NOW while they have things their way, what makes anyone think they'd
do any different if they had a Republican president?

I don't see how the solution to the Repuglicans practicing
"obstructionist politics" is to reward them for their evil efforts by
giving them a Republican president. Is that what we do? Get bullied
into electing a president? Rather, many of them will lose their seats
in the House in 2014 because they've proven how low they are. That's
how the system works.

'The rich get richer while the poor get poorer' may be alright with
some, but not with everyone.

>
>  The
>
> > only way out of this mess is for the government to back drilling
> > on federal lands and then for them to sell the oil to other countries
> > and use the proceeds to pay down the loans.
>
> They won't.
>
> I have said for a while now, the only answer left to save some of the
> country is secession, and a return to the foundational prinicples that
> made this country great

What principles are that? The rich get richer, while the poor get
poorer?

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> > In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>

> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

That doesn't even make sense.

>
> Comments about rich people just show jealousy. They didn't fall into it
> normally, like Obama.

That's laughable. Romney has almost a quarter of a billion dollars
hidden in offshore accounts and Mormon trusts to avoid paying taxes on
it.

>
> Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.

And many more make their money by deception, sidestepping the laws,
and screwing over others. Give Donald Trump a call; offer to join his
'walk on Washington' to take back the government, like the TV news
said he was tweeting on election night, maybe he'll share his wealth
with you. Somehow I don't think all these rich bigwigs walking on
Washington are going to elicit a lot of sympathy for their "plight".

> They know how to
> do it and keep it going. Poor people are poor for a reason. Poor people in
> government with socialistic tendencies will drive the country into the poor
> house. The high taxes that ensue hit the poor much harder than the rich
> percentage wise.

>
> We should go back to the days of our forefathers where only property owners
> could vote.

And blacks and women could not vote... Got ya.

>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[duke]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>
>
> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
>majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
>and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
>Senate have been doing.

Yes, but now we are really going to throw our weight around. For 4 years now,
obama has been playing cheap politics blaming President Bush and anybody else he
can name and it finally took.

There were fewer votes cast this time than last time. And he won by 1-2 points.
That's not exactly a mandate. The obama deficit is scheduled to rise to $21
trillion in the next 4 years. No end in sight to the unemployment and
underemployment picture. He's the most vilified president ever, helping murder
an ambassador to Libya. His obamacare needs annual financing and there is none
to be had except thru the House. And he get reelected. Go figure

It's all obama's fault.

The only way to take back our country is to play his game. You want obamacare -
what do we get? My oh my but the next 4 years could be fun.

The dukester, American - American
********************************************
You can't fix stupid.
********************************************

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 7, 2:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> >> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>
> >   Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
> >majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
> >and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
> >Senate have been doing.
>
> Yes, but now we are really going to throw our weight around.  For 4 years now,
> obama has been playing cheap politics blaming President Bush and anybody else he
> can name and it finally took.
>
> There were fewer votes cast this time than last time.  And he won by 1-2 points.
> That's not exactly a mandate.  The obama deficit is scheduled to rise to $21
> trillion in the next 4 years.  No end in sight to the unemployment and
> underemployment picture.   He's the most vilified president ever, helping murder
> an ambassador to Libya.  His obamacare needs annual financing and there is none
> to be had except thru the House.  And he get reelected.  Go figure
>
> It's all obama's fault.

Baloney. It's all sour grapes. Face it; like it or not, we're a
democracy, and 2.5 million more people wanted Obama than wanted
Romney.

[Michael Christ]

And, your point? :-).



Michael Christ

[Rod]

On 11/7/2012 1:46 PM, duke wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
>> majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
>> and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
>> Senate have been doing.
>
> Yes, but now we are really going to throw our weight around.

Not really. Democrats will hold 53 seats in the new Senate that
convenes in January, a gain of two. Republicans will have 45. Two seats
will be filled by independents, and at least one of them will caucus
with Democrats.

The Republicans will just promise more gridlock, then NO ONES
interests can be served.

For 4 years now,
> obama has been playing cheap politics blaming President Bush and anybody else he
> can name and it finally took.
>
> There were fewer votes cast this time than last time. And he won by 1-2 points.
> That's not exactly a mandate. The obama deficit is scheduled to rise to $21
> trillion in the next 4 years. No end in sight to the unemployment and
> underemployment picture. He's the most vilified president ever, helping murder
> an ambassador to Libya. His obamacare needs annual financing and there is none
> to be had except thru the House. And he get reelected. Go figure
>
> It's all obama's fault.
>
> The only way to take back our country is to play his game. You want obamacare -
> what do we get? My oh my but the next 4 years could be fun.

They can also be the best we'll see in a while. We need a nationwide
healthcare system. The costs of medical care are nearly beyond the
ability of many Americans to cope with financially. Do something about
the costs of the care and you have averted a crisis. Ignore it, and the
problems escalate, and republicans have no problem allowing out of
control costs when their pockets are filling up.

>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 7, 4:50 pm, Michael Christ <jesusisthelordof...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

You, and people like you, are sick in your souls; you're not the only
ones who "count", although you obviously think so.

[Andrew W]

"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:b2ad3c43-1fcb-4fc8...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com

What makes you think Obama isn't rich too?
He and his people are just better at hiding that fact than grey mudguards.


--
Religions breed hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

Many Christians spend more time looking down on other people than up
towards Christ.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>
> >> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
> >> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.
>
> > That doesn't even make sense.
>

> No kidding.

>
>
>
> >> Comments about rich people just show jealousy. They didn't fall into it
> >> normally, like Obama.
>
> > That's laughable. Romney has almost a quarter of a billion dollars
> > hidden in offshore accounts and Mormon trusts to avoid paying taxes on
> > it.
>

> Cannot blame him. He knows He is getting shafted here.
> I am paying way too much too, thanks to the people voting for more
> tacation.

>
>
>
> >> Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.
>
> > And many more make their money by deception, sidestepping the laws,
> > and screwing over others.  Give Donald Trump a call; offer to join his
> > 'walk on Washington' to take back the government, like the TV news
> > said he was tweeting on election night, maybe he'll share his wealth
> > with you. Somehow I don't think all these rich bigwigs walking on
> > Washington are going to elicit a lot of sympathy for their "plight".
>

> No doubt some do. I have known plenty of people like that rich or poor. But
> why hold them all responsible, they are not related.

>
> >> They know how to
> >> do it and keep it going. Poor people are poor for a reason. Poor people in
> >> government with socialistic tendencies will drive the country into the poor
> >> house. The high taxes that ensue hit the poor much harder than the rich
> >> percentage wise.
>
> >> We should go back to the days of our forefathers where only property owners
> >> could vote.
>
> > And blacks and women could not vote...  Got ya.
>

> Like I said, property owners.

You said "in the days of our forefathers", and when only property
owners could vote, then only men could vote, blacks and women (even if
they owned property) could not vote. And why would people need to own
property to be qualified to vote anyway? Many rich people lease lavish
apartments in NYC, and I doubt they'd agree with the 'only property
owners can vote' rule.

> Doesn't matter who they are, women own more
> property then men, should we shoot them?

I doubt that more women than men own property.

[Michael Christ]

You need a holiday, Linda.



Michael Christ

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> I remember reading about a lady who was a property owner who got the right
> to vote, I also think she had the upper hand.

I remember her! The lady with the "upper hand" - she's famous!

I think you're thinking of the statue of liberty.

>
> Most free blacks did not own until after the war.
> Today we have illegals voting everywhere. Most with very limited education.
> No one dares say a thing.
>
> One good thing about Obama in power? The time clock for the Lords return
> must be fixed. Had Romney got in and the country recovered it might have
> put off His return.

Yes, a black man (half-black anyway, unless he's lying about his white
mother, as well as hiding he's a secret Commie and secret Muslim
terrorist) in power for four more years; the world must be about to
end...

[duke]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 12:57:43 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 7, 2:46 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> >> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>
>> >   Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
>> >majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
>> >and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
>> >Senate have been doing.
>>
>> Yes, but now we are really going to throw our weight around.  For 4 years now,
>> obama has been playing cheap politics blaming President Bush and anybody else he
>> can name and it finally took.
>>
>> There were fewer votes cast this time than last time.  And he won by 1-2 points.
>> That's not exactly a mandate.  The obama deficit is scheduled to rise to $21
>> trillion in the next 4 years.  No end in sight to the unemployment and
>> underemployment picture.   He's the most vilified president ever, helping murder
>> an ambassador to Libya.  His obamacare needs annual financing and there is none
>> to be had except thru the House.  And he get reelected.  Go figure
>>
>> It's all obama's fault.

>Baloney. It's all sour grapes. Face it; like it or not, we're a
>democracy, and 2.5 million more people wanted Obama than wanted
>Romney.

Yes, but because he paid the freeloader democrats off.

Gee, even 50% of the people that voted for him said he photo op with Chris
Christie in NJ sold them on him. And he hasn't been back or mentioned Sandy
since.

[duke]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:26:37 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/7/2012 1:46 PM, duke wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
>>> majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
>>> and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
>>> Senate have been doing.
>>
>> Yes, but now we are really going to throw our weight around.
>
> Not really. Democrats will hold 53 seats in the new Senate that
>convenes in January, a gain of two. Republicans will have 45. Two seats
>will be filled by independents, and at least one of them will caucus
>with Democrats.
>
> The Republicans will just promise more gridlock, then NO ONES
>interests can be served.

That's why it's called throwing our weight around. Massa bama, you want, we
want.

Remember, it takes 2 to gridlock. The senate hasn't had a budget for 4 years.
Massa reid won't even bring anything up but what benefits the freeloader
democrats. Now that's gridlock.

> For 4 years now,
>> obama has been playing cheap politics blaming President Bush and anybody else he
>> can name and it finally took.
>>
>> There were fewer votes cast this time than last time. And he won by 1-2 points.
>> That's not exactly a mandate. The obama deficit is scheduled to rise to $21
>> trillion in the next 4 years. No end in sight to the unemployment and
>> underemployment picture. He's the most vilified president ever, helping murder
>> an ambassador to Libya. His obamacare needs annual financing and there is none
>> to be had except thru the House. And he get reelected. Go figure
>>
>> It's all obama's fault.
>>
>> The only way to take back our country is to play his game. You want obamacare -
>> what do we get? My oh my but the next 4 years could be fun.

> They can also be the best we'll see in a while. We need a nationwide
>healthcare system.

But not one that robs from the medicare crowd who paid in all their life in
order to give more freebies to the freeloader democrat medicaid crowd. You're
getting ready to see a big drop off in doctors. You will likely go to the
doctor and wait to see him. If your child doesn't get in today, come back
tomorrow. Oh, you no longer get sick leave from work. Oh, oh.

> The costs of medical care are nearly beyond the
>ability of many Americans to cope with financially.

And with many hourly workers reduced to 29 hours temporary staff a week with no
health benefits, then what? You know the answer - YOU pay more to give to the
freeloaders.

> Do something about
>the costs of the care and you have averted a crisis. Ignore it, and the
>problems escalate, and republicans have no problem allowing out of
>control costs when their pockets are filling up.

Massa bama is making it awful in a few months. You see, nothing the Republicans
wanted was of any value. Massa bama is at fault.

[duke]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>> > In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>
>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.
>
>That doesn't even make sense.
>
>>
>> Comments about rich people just show jealousy. They didn't fall into it
>> normally, like Obama.
>
>That's laughable. Romney has almost a quarter of a billion dollars
>hidden in offshore accounts and Mormon trusts to avoid paying taxes on
>it.

Let's say he did. Is it not legal? Is not your house mortgage interest
deductible. Is not your child credit deductible?

>> Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.

>And many more make their money by deception, sidestepping the laws,
>and screwing over others.

If you follow the law, you do not sidestep it.

>And blacks and women could not vote... Got ya.

The same stinking strawman still comes around. Tell a woeman "no", and he
immediately starts crying.

[Rod]

yes, bwana...

>
>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

[duke]

On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:29:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

You ever wonder why so many men demand a pre-nup agreement?

In the divorce, the woeman takes both 1/2 of the $ and all of the XXX.

[vince garcia]

The principle that GOD is the source and definer of human rights, and
the thought that the constitution must be interpreted in a scecular,
atheist manner divorced from Scriotural principles is anathema.

If that means the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then bring it
on!

[Ike]

On 11/7/2012 4:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

Yes, there is no accounting for stupidity and the power of Satan.

Ike

["iiiaamm.-"]

"Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."

Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.

[Ike]

On 11/7/2012 5:12 AM, Linda Lee wrote:

> On Nov 7, 4:34 am, Barry OGrady <athe...@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee
>>

>> <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>

>> The US lost?
>
> So you're as ignorant about politics as you are about the Scriptures.
> The US missed electing a rich man (who has a yearly income of 3
> million and is worth between 190 and 240 million dollars; the amount
> is not known because much of it is in offshore accounts and Mormon
> trusts to avoid taxes) who was so out of touch with the common people
> and what it entails to earn a living and support oneself and one's
> family, that when college students complained to him that they didn't
> have money for the increasingly high costs of college tuition, he told
> them they should borrow it from their parents. There's a solution!
> Getting money for college at Harvard from his rich parents is what
> Romney did! That's what everyone should do! Romney's the 'Marie
> Antoinette' of US politics. Oh dear, the people have no bread? Let
> them eat cakes! Cakes are better anyway! (Yes, I know Marie Antoinette
> did not really say that.)

And then Jezebel came down on the side of the Babylonian.

Go figure.

Ike

["aakkmmm.-"]

A poster asked:

> You said "in the days of our forefathers", and when only property
> owners could vote, then only men could vote, blacks and women (even if
> they owned property) could not vote. And why would people need to own
> property to be qualified to vote anyway?

Instead of an answer we got an evasion:

"Most free blacks did not own until after the war. "

Blacks could not vote in many places until the '60's, property or not.
What an irrelevant response.

"Today we have illegals voting everywhere. Most with very limited
education. No one dares say a thing."

Happy to entertain evidence of this as a problem anywhere to any degree
that makes a difference. What matter education? What a silly elitist
idea.

"One good thing about Obama in power? The time clock for the Lords return
must be fixed. Had Romney got in and the country recovered it might have
put off His return."

Let's see if we got this straight? If a morman had been elected it would
have moved the Lord to do something one way instead if a christian had been
elected another way? Does this presuppose that a mere man can force the
Lord to do anything?

Have we here another harold camping wanna be number cruncher and date
setter? Could be, considering the off the wall religious on the fly
invented doctrines common of the source.

Lord have mercy.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 8, 6:03 am, "iiiaamm.-" wrote:
> "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=N00009638&year=2011


TCross

["iiaamm.-"]

> "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.

" "http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=3DN00009638&year=3D2011

That is a political donation look up site. It says nothing about any
person's private wealth.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 8, 7:00 am, "iiaamm.-" wrote:
> > "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> > Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.
>

> "  "http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=3DN00009638&year=3...

>
> That is a political donation look up site.  It says nothing about any
> person's private wealth.

I read:
Net Worth: From $1,566,014 to $7,764,999

TCross

["iiimmm.-"]

> > "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> > Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.
>
> "

=A0"http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/CIDsummary.php?CID=3D3DN00009638&ye=
ar=3D3...
>
> That is a political donation look up site. =A0It says nothing about any

> person's private wealth.

"I read: Net Worth: From $1,566,014 to $7,764,999"

Yes, that info from tax returns was widely reported. It says nothing about
source of the income and how it was earned. Look again at the bald face
assertion and its implied reasons for that income. Knowing income does not
rescue it from being a lie and slander if info supporting it is not forth
coming, no?

>>>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home,
very
>>>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

Lord have mercy.

[duke]

Are you a democrat freeloader? I'm betting you're not.

[SwordOz]

"Linda Lee" <lindag...@juno.com> wrote in message

news:e9f7e20e-b712-477e...@r5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>> > In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

> That doesn't even make sense.
>>

>> Comments about rich people just show jealousy. They didn't fall into it
>> normally, like Obama.
>
> That's laughable. Romney has almost a quarter of a billion dollars

> hidden in offshore accounts and Mormon trusts to avoid paying taxes on
> it.

>>
>> Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.
>
> And many more make their money by deception, sidestepping the laws,
> and screwing over others. Give Donald Trump a call; offer to join his
> 'walk on Washington' to take back the government, like the TV news
> said he was tweeting on election night, maybe he'll share his wealth
> with you. Somehow I don't think all these rich bigwigs walking on
> Washington are going to elicit a lot of sympathy for their "plight".
>

>> They know how to
>> do it and keep it going. Poor people are poor for a reason. Poor people
>> in
>> government with socialistic tendencies will drive the country into the
>> poor
>> house. The high taxes that ensue hit the poor much harder than the rich
>> percentage wise.
>>
>> We should go back to the days of our forefathers where only property
>> owners
>> could vote.
>
> And blacks and women could not vote... Got ya.

sword:
Envy [jealously] is an ingredient of the human condition [nature]. Self
introspection is
tantamount to understanding the Hebrew point of view concerning envious
behavior.
In case you have difficulty understanding may I remind you that "envy or
jealously"
is akin to "works of the flesh" according to the Apostle Paul as Gal 5:21
records.


Respectfully,
Sword

[jwshe...@satx.rr.com]

Brief Post-Election Thoughts by Bryan Owen
Running up to this presidential election, I was struck by how many
people - including both Democrats and Republicans - were basically in
agreement with this apocalyptic proposition: "If my candidate does not
win, the world will come to an end." Some put matters like this: "The
other candidate hates America, and if he wins, everything we value
will crash and burn. Our whole way of life will be thrown under the
bus." Now that we know the winner, some on the losing side continue
to say the same things. I note, for example, the rhetoric of "the day
America died." And then there's this title of an American Spectator
essay: "Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption."

Many Christians are among those joining this chorus of hopelessness,
doom, and gloom. It's almost as if we've been deluded into believing
that a mere mortal who gets elected into a particular position of
power is somehow a Savior (or the Antichrist). I don't deny that
there are critical issues at stake in our political life. Nor do I
want to suggest that as Christians we should not act on our deepest
values in the public square. And I'm not saying that it doesn't
matter who gets elected President. But some of the hand-wringing,
doom-and-gloom rhetoric has, quite frankly, struck me as idolatrous.

I'm reminded that many Christians have lived and practiced the faith
under far more dire conditions than anything a Republican or a
Democratic Presidential administration can dish out. Indeed, many of
them were imprisoned, tortured, and died for the faith. And that
tragic scenario continues to unfold in many parts of the world today
(see, for example, the website The Voice of the Martyrs). Even if one
grants the argument that some conservative Christians today are making
- that we'll see in the near future persecution and imprisonment for
Christians who dare to publicly speak in favor of traditional biblical
values against the current of "progressive" change - I'm not
comfortable equating that possible scenario with what confessors and
martyrs have and are experiencing.

Election day fell this year on the Feast Day of William Temple, the
98th Archbishop of Canterbury. While taking another look at his life
and legacy, I came across the following quote from a sermon he
delivered at the Lambeth Conference in 1930. It strikes me as
appropriate for American Christians who may be tempted to take a turn
to henotheism in the midst of our deeply polarized politics:


While we deliberate, he reigns; when we decide, he reigns; when we
decide foolishly, he reigns; when we serve him in humble loyalty, he
reigns; when we serve him self-assertively, he reigns; when we rebel
and seek to withhold our service, he reigns - the Alpha and the Omega,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Amen!


http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/

[r m]

On Nov 7, 8:08 pm, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

I was sent this viral today (methinks it happens every elections) -



A MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign
Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your failure in recent years to nominate competent
candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we
hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective
immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English
Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical
duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except North
Dakota, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, David Cameron, will appoint a Governor for
America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be
circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following
rules are introduced with immediate effect:

-----------------------

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,'
'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell
'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize'
will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected
to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

------------------------

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises
such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form
of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let
Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be
adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the
elimination of '-ize.'

-------------------

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

-----------------

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns,
lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and
therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns
should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out
without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not
ready to shoot grouse.

----------------------

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything
more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be
required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

----------------------

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will
start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same
time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit
of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you
understand the British sense of humour.

--------------------

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been
calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

-------------------

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French
fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling
potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut,
fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

-------------------

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not
actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be
referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted
provenance will be referred to as Lager. South African beer is also
acceptable, as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting nation
on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the
British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will
be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold
without risk of further confusion.

---------------------

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to
play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English
dialect in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to
having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

---------------------

11. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind
of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough
will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities
to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every
twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of
nancies).

---------------------

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to
host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played
outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world
beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn
cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the
sting out of their deliveries.

--------------------

13.. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

-----------------

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's
Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all
monies due (backdated to 1776).

---------------

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with
saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and
cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!



PS: Only share this with friends who have a good sense of humour (NOT
humor)!

[Rod]

No. I'm an independent with moderate leanings, biut that is because
of my Faith and Christ's commands about service to the poor, widows
and orphans, not becaue I believe everything should be given to you.

>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

[Rod]

On 11/8/2012 11:01 AM, duke wrote:

I think that you know that there is only one way to stop socialism,
and I'm NOT going to live under it.

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 8, 2:39 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
wrote:

> Brief Post-Election Thoughts    by Bryan Owen
> Running up to this presidential election, I was struck by how many
> people - including both Democrats and Republicans - were basically in
> agreement with this apocalyptic proposition: "If my candidate does not
> win, the world will come to an end."  Some put matters like this: "The
> other candidate hates America, and if he wins, everything we value
> will crash and burn.  Our whole way of life will be thrown under the
> bus."  Now that we know the winner, some on the losing side continue
> to say the same things.  I note, for example, the rhetoric of "the day
> America died."  And then there's this title of an American Spectator
> essay: "Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption."

I agree. Both candidates were anti-Jesus. I am not Dispensational,
but it is difficult to believe we are not sliding toward disaster.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> Why must you jump to extremes?

ME? You say Obama's re-election means the end of the world is near,
and _I'M_ jumping to extremes? Lol!

>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 12:01 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:34:04 -0600, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 11/8/2012 6:28 AM, duke wrote:

> >> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:26:37 -0600, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 11/7/2012 1:46 PM, duke wrote:

Those "democratic freeloaders" are the same people you have alleged
you help, which considering your attitude and your propensity for
lying is very doubtful. Christians should want policies in place
where our taxes help the poor and needy and sickly. But you just see
the poor and needy and sickly as "freeloaders" who should not be
helped. That kind of belies your "deeds without faith" anti-gospel
doctrine, doesn't it?

James 1:27, "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is
this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to
keep himself unspotted from the world."

Whatever would Mother Theresa have thought about your attitude?
Mother Theresa to the sick and needy, 'Go get a job, you bum!'

[Linda Lee]

Now it was all for nought unless the Saviour returns soon. (Notice I
still retain the "u".) Lol!

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 5:39 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
wrote:

> Brief Post-Election Thoughts    by Bryan Owen
> Running up to this presidential election, I was struck by how many
> people - including both Democrats and Republicans - were basically in
> agreement with this apocalyptic proposition: "If my candidate does not
> win, the world will come to an end."  Some put matters like this: "The
> other candidate hates America, and if he wins, everything we value
> will crash and burn.  Our whole way of life will be thrown under the
> bus."  Now that we know the winner, some on the losing side continue
> to say the same things.  I note, for example, the rhetoric of "the day
> America died."  And then there's this title of an American Spectator
> essay: "Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption."
>
> Many Christians are among those joining this chorus of hopelessness,
> doom, and gloom.  It's almost as if we've been deluded into believing
> that a mere mortal who gets elected into a particular position of
> power is somehow a Savior (or the Antichrist).  I don't deny that
> there are critical issues at stake in our political life.  Nor do I
> want to suggest that as Christians we should not act on our deepest
> values in the public square.  And I'm not saying that it doesn't
> matter who gets elected President.  But some of the hand-wringing,
> doom-and-gloom rhetoric has, quite frankly, struck me as idolatrous.

There will always be extremists. Some people love to predict gloom and
doom.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 8, 8:20 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 2:39 pm, "jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com" <jwsheffi...@satx.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Brief Post-Election Thoughts    by Bryan Owen
> > Running up to this presidential election, I was struck by how many
> > people - including both Democrats and Republicans - were basically in
> > agreement with this apocalyptic proposition: "If my candidate does not
> > win, the world will come to an end."  Some put matters like this: "The
> > other candidate hates America, and if he wins, everything we value
> > will crash and burn.  Our whole way of life will be thrown under the
> > bus."  Now that we know the winner, some on the losing side continue
> > to say the same things.  I note, for example, the rhetoric of "the day
> > America died."  And then there's this title of an American Spectator
> > essay: "Doomed Beyond All Hope of Redemption."
>
> I agree.  Both candidates were anti-Jesus.

Says the person who denies Christ was the Son of David, the Jews.

> I am not Dispensational,
> but it is difficult to believe we are not sliding toward disaster.
>
> TCross

You agree with what? The post was criticizing the doom and gloomers as
idolatrous extremists.

[Rod]

On 11/8/2012 11:01 AM, duke wrote:

I'll tell you what I am for...I'm for giving him a chance to do the
right thing for everyone. I pay closer attention to politics than
some think I should...but the poor can benefit from politics as well
as the wealthy. I am not for taxing the wealthy, but if they are not
at present paying in...they should be regardless of the loopholes.

I am for creative ways of finding funding to get us out of this debt
we are in, and I'm thinking that oil may provide some relief.

One thing I will not do is remove Obama because he is helping the
poor. If the wealthy and the GOP can't live with that then they need
to have a sample of what it is like to be DIRT POOR for the poor.

["iiimmm.-"]

> > "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> > Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.

[Rod]

On 11/8/2012 1:27 AM, Pete wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:29:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>>

>>>>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
>>>>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.
>>>

> Most free blacks did not own until after the war.
> Today we have illegals voting everywhere. Most with very limited education.
> No one dares say a thing.
>
> One good thing about Obama in power?

We need to give the man a chance to do the right thing, and by the
right thing I don't mean increase the debt. I made a few suggestions by
email and I hope they reach him, and I'm working on a few other ideas
too, but I'm not alone in this thing. I wish more people that groan and
complain would come up with fresh ideas themselves and send a few of
those ideas to Obama. We have an abundance of offshore oil on federal
areas that we could trade and apply to the national debt. At the rate
that China, India and Russia are using oil we can have the deficit payed
down inside of two years and still fund the operation of a trimmed down
government. This means Congress is the very first to get furloughed,
then the Department of State, the Dept. of Justice with exception of the
FBI. The NSA takes over the duties of the CIA, CIA gets a vacation
but not the military or the defense dept.. Contractors for the military
use their people and skills for peacetime infrastructure rebuilding and
NASA gets more funding to actually explore space for raw materials
and set up a base on Mars because of the possibility of terraforming it
and making it habitable.

The time clock for the Lords return
> must be fixed. Had Romney got in and the country recovered it might have
> put off His return.
>

>>> Doesn't matter who they are, women own more
>>> property then men, should we shoot them?
>>
>> I doubt that more women than men own property.
>>
>

> I wouldn't be. The majority of the wealthy I know their wives have any
> where from 30 to 120 million more than their husbands and that does not
> even include trust funds.

[Rod]

On 11/8/2012 11:01 AM, duke wrote:

I have a novel idea! How about you give me a few suggestions on how I
can encourage Obama to help the poor without taking money from those who
make more than most of us ?

I posted a suggestion to Romney on his campaign site to which he did
not respond. The best way to help the poor is directly. Teach them to
develop skills that they will use to help and teach OTHERS that are
poor. You can teach them many things, and they in turn can teach each
other, and then fund them for an employment period of 30 days. Those
that fail go to jobs with less responsibility and less pay, and for 2
years they make monthly payments out of their salaries or wages to
repay the cost of training them. To do this and make it work as it
should, it has to be done in the private sector with oversight by
the dept.of Education. No one knows better how to teach or make it take
than a few GOOD educators.

Since many of you here seem to think we are headed for a socialist
state...how about doing some serious thinking and make it WORK FOR US!!!

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 10:10 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

Why would we want to "put off His return" anyway? It sounds like you
don't want the return of Christ.

>
> >>> Yes, a black man (half-black anyway, unless he's lying about his white
> >>> mother, as well as hiding he's a secret Commie and secret Muslim
> >>> terrorist) in power for four more years; the world must be about to
> >>> end...
>
> >> Why must you jump to extremes?
>
> > ME?  You say Obama's re-election means the end of the world is near,
> > and _I'M_ jumping to extremes?  Lol!
>

>  Mine was meant to be serious thought.

I think the outrageous and manipulative accusations against Obama are
serious.

> Had God wanted to lengthen out the
> time of His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that the
> outcome would have been different.

Huh? If God, for some reason, "had wanted to lengthen out the time of
His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that" the
Repuglicans would have won the election?

> SO that our nation would become stronger
> financially, morally, and so on.

The return of the Lord isn't dependent upon those things. And what
makes you think people that are lowdown and morally corrupt enough to
spread malicious lies in order to win an election would suddenly
become morally upright if they won the election? You're dreaming.

The Republicans have really been showing their hand the last 12 years
especially, beginning with George W. Bush pulling a coup and stealing
the election from Al Gore with the help of Florida Governor Jeb Bush,
Bush's brother, and Bush's first cousin John W. Ellis, who ignored the
popular vote in Florida. These Repuglicans want power at any price.

>
> Now that we are in the same status of decline, and socialism on the rise
> especially in the forced health care scenario where life is valued on
> personal productivity for the state.

Huh? You're making a lot of unproven claims.

> We will never be the nation that once
> was. Hence wickedness will rapidly increase, and the WW financial woes will
> bring about the rise building to the anti-christ.

I don't think you need to worry yet, they'll be claiming peace at that
time. Personally, I would like to see the return of Christ.

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 9:18 AM, Pete wrote:

> Those are great ideas, and as to the oil, since we have more than anyplace
> else in the world then if the world remained peaceful that would be our way
> out of debt, as you say, but I fear we will be so depleted militarily that
> we would just be taken over and destroyed just for that same oil. People
> should have listened to the words that OBAMA has been saying all along. And
> looked at all his supporting actions.
>
> I hope you are sending your ideas to congressmen and senators who could
> really make a difference if they woke up.

I have been doing that, but I need others to come up with ideas as
well and send them in. But one thing still bothers me; making the best
of the situation at hand is one thing, but I still have the over riding
fear that Obama is not truly willing to defend our country should it
come down to it. Not only was Benghazi a mess and suspicious but just
this morning I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.

I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?

[Rod]

Pete;

I have to leave this morning, I've got a kid to pick up in Wichita
and take him to Topeka, so I'll be gone until 9 or 9:30 tonight and
probably won't see your reply until tomorrow morning.


Thanks !

Rod

["iiimmm.-"]

> ME? You say Obama's re-election means the end of the world is near,
> and _I'M_ jumping to extremes? Lol!

" Mine was meant to be serious thought. Had God wanted to lengthen out the

time of His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that the

outcome would have been different. SO that our nation would become stronger

financially, morally, and so on.

Now that we are in the same status of decline, and socialism on the rise
especially in the forced health care scenario where life is valued on

personal productivity for the state. We will never be the nation that once

was. Hence wickedness will rapidly increase, and the WW financial woes will
bring about the rise building to the anti-christ."

This has nothing to do with political views one might hold, it is on the
fly religious hogwash from a harold camping wanna be.

What utter nonsense, all of this without foundation in scripture, none of
it. "No man knows" is the final word on the topic.

Since when does the economy of a country cause or not the end times? Utter
nonsense in the extreme.

Lord have mercy.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>
>    I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?

How would knowing of it have changed the election results?

[duke]

According to Christ, we should do the giving. And as a Republican, that's
exactly what we're doing for the freeloaders.

[duke]

> I think that you know that there is only one way to stop socialism,
> and I'm NOT going to live under it.

You already are, and it's going to get al lot worst now that massa bama is in
for anohter 4 years.

[duke]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:39:42 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindag...@juno.com>
wrote:

>> Are you a democrat freeloader?  I'm betting you're not.

>Those "democratic freeloaders" are the same people you have alleged
>you help

Of course, as a Christian and a Republican, we provide for those that have not
(or so the stupid people want to believe. Heeheehee)

Republicans and Christians do for others, free loaders laugh.

[duke]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:33:31 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll tell you what I am for...I'm for giving him a chance to do the
> right thing for everyone.

And the reason he totally ignored the Republicans for 4 years is
................ what?

> I pay closer attention to politics than
> some think I should...but the poor can benefit from politics as well
> as the wealthy. I am not for taxing the wealthy, but if they are not
> at present paying in...they should be regardless of the loopholes.

> I am for creative ways of finding funding to get us out of this debt
> we are in, and I'm thinking that oil may provide some relief.

So am I. One of my favorites is that 100% of all people in the US pay federal
taxes on income, dividends, food stamps, welfare, everything one didn't earn,
etc.

> One thing I will not do is remove Obama because he is helping the
> poor.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
Executive Summary

Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The
Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of
households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure
is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no
federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.)
[3]

These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income
families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance,
and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.
¦The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique
circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled
the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are
particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery
Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from
tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed
millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these
temporary tax measures have since expired.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe
federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do
not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]

>If the wealthy and the GOP can't live with that then they need
> to have a sample of what it is like to be DIRT POOR for the poor.

Dirt Poor?

[duke]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:25:15 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have a novel idea! How about you give me a few suggestions on how I
>can encourage Obama to help the poor without taking money from those who
>make more than most of us ?

I think you misquote the "not taking money form the rich". Thye pay

1. Everybody pays some tax, not 54% but 100% of all "receiving something".
2. With the exception of the "infirmed, very elderly", everybody must work part
time each week, from doing whatever to another caring for their children or
doing the cooking, etc.

That's two.

I myself am now 70, and I earned my social security and medicare. It's not an
entitlement. But in the overall plan, I could easily still contribute. At some
points, I had to draw unemployment. I could have been asked to do something
then.

> Since many of you here seem to think we are headed for a socialist
>state...how about doing some serious thinking and make it WORK FOR US!!!

The problem is that those of us that give are not getting. I worked all my
career except for times of no work, and now massa bama is going to take $760
billion out of Medicare. Thanks, massa. Is he going to eat it, or give it to
his freeloader buddies like the unions and the drug pushers.

[duke]

Don't you understand, or not heard, that the current target is $21 trillion? The
only thing in the way is Congress raising the debt ceiling.

[duke]

On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 09:48:02 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I hope you are sending your ideas to congressmen and senators who could
>> really make a difference if they woke up.

> I have been doing that, but I need others to come up with ideas as
>well and send them in.

They already know what to do. You gotta know when to hold 'em and when to fold
'em. Massa bama plays dirty, and the white man plays like.............well, an
old and fat and stupid white man.

Either we go toe to toe with massa, or he'll continue to run right over us. If
we play nice, we lose. If we play dirty also, well, we'll find out. Massa
barely got over 50% of the vote while NY/NJ stinks.

[Terry Cross]

I agree with most of those who say things doomish and gloomish. We
have problems all over, and powerful cliques of billionaires eager to
exacerbate the source of both ishes.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 9, 5:49 am, "iiimmm.-" wrote:
> > > "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> > > Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.
>
> "I read: Net Worth: From $1,566,014 to $7,764,999"
>
> Yes, that info from tax returns was widely reported.  It says nothing about
> source of the income and how it was earned.  Look again at the bald face
> assertion and its implied reasons for that income.  Knowing income does not
> rescue it from being a lie and slander if info supporting it is not forth
> coming, no?

Proof is the body of evidence that supports the whole of the thesis.
Each element of evidence might support only a part. You asked for
evidence, not proof, and you premised your "lie and slander" on the
occasion of NO evidence. I brought forth evidence of the
"multimillionaire" assertion. I do not know how it was earned, but I
doubt the sources named were sufficient to enable that accumulation of
the admitted net worth.

TCross

[Terry Cross]

On Nov 7, 10:52 am, Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>

Pete the Sage debates with Pete the Sage. Pete I says:

> > Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
> > nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

Then Pete II says:

> > Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.

Isn't that great? And I will wager Pete I and Pete II will support
both statements in flawless doublethink, never acknowledging that he
has contradicted himself.

TCross

["iiaadmm.-"]

> > > "Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned."
>
> > > Evidence please, if none is forthcoming it is a lie and slander.
>
> "I read: Net Worth: From $1,566,014 to $7,764,999"
>

> Yes, that info from tax returns was widely reported. =A0It says nothing
a=
bout
> source of the income and how it was earned. =A0Look again at the bald
fac=
e
> assertion and its implied reasons for that income. =A0Knowing income
does=

not
> rescue it from being a lie and slander if info supporting it is not forth
> coming, no?
>

>>>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home,
very
>>>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

"Proof is the body of evidence that supports the whole of the thesis. Each
element of evidence might support only a part. You asked for evidence, not
proof, and you premised your "lie and slander" on the occasion of NO
evidence. I brought forth evidence of the "multimillionaire" assertion. I
do not know how it was earned, but I doubt the sources named were
sufficient to enable that accumulation of the admitted net worth."

Forgive me if I'm completely underwhelmed by this bit of sophistry.

The numbers were never the question, the clear implied and unsupported
accusation as to the reason for the numbers was. Do you wish to join in
adding to what is to now a lie and slander?

This is not for me a political qquestion and is independent of whom it is
being said. It is of now a lie and slander until and unless
evidence/'proof can be provided for the implied accusation.

Lord have mercy.

[MattB]

On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>>
>

> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans have a
>majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist politics
>and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the

>Senate have been doing. This also mean that there will be NO new jobs
>added to the economy because the wealthy who own the companies will
>refuse to invest more venture capital as Obama wants to tax them more.
>
> Obama will keep on borrowing money until the currency is worthless
>and then the playing filed will be level, the money worthless, the
>wealthy will now be flat broke and everyone will be dirt poor. The
>system CAN and WILL collapse in on itself. We will essentially be forced
>to become a socialist country because of our poverty. The
>only way out of this mess is for the government to back drilling
>on federal lands and then for them to sell the oil to other countries
>and use the proceeds to pay down the loans.
>
> We cannot keep borrowing money from everyone else forever. Sooner of
>later they AND we will be OUT of funds and unable to make so much as
>the interest payments on the loans.

Hi Rod

The problem with Obamacare is that it will cost jobs. I would have
preferred a system more like Canada. If I need hire employees cost is
a factor the more cost the less hiring.

With taxes the same applies. We do need a increase so first off I'd
say let the Bush Tax cuts expire completely. The cut out loop-holes
and dome deductions. That and revoke the Tax exempt status of any
Church that plays politics. There is no easy fix.

Be Well

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 12:20 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:39:42 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee <lindagirl...@juno.com>

> wrote:
>
> >> Are you a democrat freeloader? I'm betting you're not.
> >Those "democratic freeloaders" are the same people you have alleged
> >you help
>
> Of course, as a Christian and a Republican, we provide for those that have not
> (or so the stupid people want to believe.  Heeheehee)

Right. Your skepticism proves you do not.

>
> Republicans

Repuglicans have historically not cared about anyone but themselves.
Remember Reagan who provided us with the homeless problem when he cut
off funding to people who were blatantly mentally ill and even to
amputees who had no limbs at all; I've seen them out on the street
begging on little carts with wheels. We didn't have the large homeless
population we have now until Reagan.

> and Christians do for others, free loaders laugh.

The poor = freeloaders to the anti-christian "deeds without faith
saves" false teacher.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 12:44 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:25:15 -0600, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   I have a novel idea! How about you give me a few suggestions on how I
> >can encourage Obama to help the poor without taking money from those who
> >make more than most of us ?
>
> I think you misquote the "not taking money form the rich".  Thye pay
>
> 1.  Everybody pays some tax, not 54% but 100% of all "receiving something".
> 2.  With the exception of the "infirmed, very elderly", everybody must work part
> time each week, from doing whatever to another caring for their children or
> doing the cooking, etc.
>
> That's two.
>
> I myself am now 70, and I earned my social security and medicare.

Freeloader.

[Linda Lee]

I noticed.

[Linda Lee]

He doesn't make sense and then when that is pointed out to him, he
agrees.

[Linda Lee]

He offers no proof. I wonder who he think gave Obama the money he
claims was not earned.

["iiioomm.-"]

> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.

I have asked that evidence for the above implied accusations be provided
least the person making the claim be found to lie and slander.

To date there is complete silence and thus confirmation and self
condemnation.

Another poster observed:

"He offers no proof. I wonder who he think gave Obama the money he claims
was not earned."

Yes, it is that and I fear more is implied that goes beyond politics.

It makes no difference to me about whom such lies and slanders are made, it
is about the morality and hypocrisy of it all. When they are asked by
Christ to justify in judgement how they treated their neighbor, what could
be the possible excuse?

Lordd have mercy.

[Terry Cross]

He hasn't agreed yet to this one.

TCross

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 6:42 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:42:13 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:10 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Nov 2012 03:23:54 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>> On Nov 8, 12:56 pm, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> >>>> On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 02:46:37 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 8, 2:27 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:29:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.
>

> >>>>>>>>>> Obama is a multimillionaire, none of it earned. He has a nice home, very
> >>>>>>>>>> nice. More than he could possibly have afforded at the time.
>

> >>>>>>>>> That doesn't even make sense.
>
> >>>>>>>> No kidding.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Comments about rich people just show jealousy. They didn't fall into it
> >>>>>>>>>> normally, like Obama.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That's laughable. Romney has almost a quarter of a billion dollars
> >>>>>>>>> hidden in offshore accounts and Mormon trusts to avoid paying taxes on
> >>>>>>>>> it.
>
> >>>>>>>> Cannot blame him. He knows He is getting shafted here.
> >>>>>>>> I am paying way too much too, thanks to the people voting for more
> >>>>>>>> tacation.
>

> >>>>>>>>>> Rich people make money due to smart choices and hard work.
>

> >>>>> I remember her! The lady with the "upper hand" - she's famous!
>
> >>>>> I think you're thinking of the statue of liberty.

>
> >>>>>> Most free blacks did not own until after the war.
> >>>>>> Today we have illegals voting everywhere. Most with very limited education.
> >>>>>> No one dares say a thing.
>

> >>>>>> One good thing about Obama in power? The time clock for the Lords return
> >>>>>> must be fixed. Had Romney got in and the country recovered it might have
> >>>>>> put off His return.
>
> > Why would we want to "put off His return" anyway?  It sounds like you
> > don't want the return of Christ.
>
> I can't see how you come up with that as my primary interest is in his soon
> return, yet, the longer the delay more can get in .
>

>
> >>>>> Yes, a black man (half-black anyway, unless he's lying about his white
> >>>>> mother, as well as hiding he's a secret Commie and secret Muslim
> >>>>> terrorist) in power for four more years; the world must be about to
> >>>>> end...
>
> >>>> Why must you jump to extremes?

>
> >>> ME? You say Obama's re-election means the end of the world is near,
> >>> and _I'M_ jumping to extremes? Lol!
>
> >> Mine was meant to be serious thought.
>

> > I think the outrageous and manipulative accusations against Obama are
> > serious.
>
> If I present any they are well founded.

You've proven nothing.

> I even have some rather well know
> liberal authors who now question their original papers and thinking.

You have them? Where?

>
> >> Had God wanted to lengthen out the
> >> time of His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that the
> >> outcome would have been different.
>

> > Huh? If God, for some reason, "had wanted to lengthen out the time of

> > His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that" the

> > Repuglicans would have won the election?
>
> That is funny. Republican equals Godliness?

No, rather the Repuglicans are equated with ungodliness. But it is you
who said "the outcome" of the election "would have been different",
and there were only two people running who had any chance of winning.

>
> >> SO that our nation would become stronger
> >> financially, morally, and so on.
>

> > The return of the Lord isn't dependent upon those things. And what
> > makes you think people that are lowdown and morally corrupt enough to
> > spread malicious lies in order to win an election would suddenly
> > become morally upright if they won the election? You're dreaming.
>
> You have mixed reality with ideologies, never a good idea.

I think you're talking about yourself there.

>
> > The Republicans have really been showing their hand the last 12 years
> > especially, beginning with George W. Bush pulling a coup and stealing
> > the election from Al Gore with the help of Florida Governor Jeb Bush,
> > Bush's brother, and Bush's first cousin John W. Ellis, who ignored the
> > popular vote in Florida. These Repuglicans want power at any price.
>
> Good grief!! I am not even going to comment on that.

There's no need for you to comment; I saw it with my own eyes;
suddenly the streets of the city I worked in was filled with the
homeless on the downtown streets. You were accosted with the shouts of
the insane when you walked off the bus, and you were confronted with
an uncountable number of terribly injured beggars on your lunchbreak.
I even saw people climbing out of the weeds on the edge of the city
looking like they'd just woken up. And they'd sleep in the alleys
because the heat from the buildings warmed the alleys. You'd go into
McDonald's to eat, and they would be cleaning up in the bathroom. And
a month before Reagan's hardhearted decision, none of those people
were anywhere around there. It was pretty incredible and really sad. I
was followed more than one time by unbalanced people. I quit working
downtown; it was no longer safe. These people who obviously needed
care had had a roof over their heads before Reagan.

>
>
>
> >> Now that we are in the same status of decline, and socialism on the rise
> >> especially in the forced health care scenario where life is valued on
> >> personal productivity for the state.
>

> > Huh?  You're making a lot of unproven claims.
>
> Only if ones head is in the sand.

You've proved nothing at all here! Prove something, then you can make
such comments without looking foolish.

>
> >> We will never be the nation that once
> >> was. Hence wickedness will rapidly increase, and the WW financial woes will
> >> bring about the rise building to the anti-christ.
>

> > I don't think you need to worry yet, they'll be claiming peace at that
> > time. Personally, I would like to see the return of Christ.
>
> Me too, I won't worry in any event. I am in the hands of Jesus.
>
> --
> Peter
> A living Stone
> A Disciple of The Lord Jesus Christ
> Joh 13:34-35 KJV

[SwordOz]

"Rod" <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k7j2l7$64i$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/8/2012 1:27 AM, Pete wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:29:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:

Rod wrote:
> We need to give the man a chance to do the right thing, and by the right
> thing I don't mean increase the debt.

sword:
Whoa ... "a chance to do the right thing"? I find it inconceivable from a
common sense perspective how anyone could intellectually perceive that
increasing spending is the mojo of getting out of debt.

Do you fully understand what you, your wife, your children and this nation
stands to lose and the impending economic collapse we are heading
towards *IF* the "right thing" is never acted upon?


rod;
>I made a few suggestions by email and I hope they reach him, and I'm
>working on a few other ideas
> too, but I'm not alone in this thing.

sword:
Is this a national movement of sorts? <chuckle>


>I wish more people that groan and complain would come up with fresh ideas
>themselves and send a few of those ideas to Obama.

sword:
Not groaning nor complaining but what was done with the "fresh
ideas" presented during the past four? By the way don't be surprised
if you receive a robo e-mail reply to make you feel good. :)



rod:
>We have an abundance of offshore oil on federal
> areas that we could trade and apply to the national debt.

rod:
Sounds good but what kind of guarantee that it would be applied
to the national debt?

What proof do you have that this administration has any concern for the
national debt after running it up hog wild for over 6 trillion $ the
past 4 years?


At the rate
> that China, India and Russia are using oil we can have the deficit payed
> down inside of two years and still fund the operation of a trimmed down
> government. This means Congress is the very first to get furloughed, then
> the Department of State, the Dept. of Justice with exception of the FBI.
> The NSA takes over the duties of the CIA, CIA gets a vacation
> but not the military or the defense dept.. Contractors for the military
> use their people and skills for peacetime infrastructure rebuilding and
> NASA gets more funding to actually explore space for raw materials
> and set up a base on Mars because of the possibility of terraforming it
> and making it habitable.

sword:
But the reality of the predicament which this nation faces is that
the more money coming into the nation's coffer's at this time equates
to more freebies being handed by this administration to pacify the
wants and desires of it's political minions which support it.


Respectfully,
Sword

.

[SwordOz]

"Rod" <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:k7j3ph$drj$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 11/8/2012 11:01 AM, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2012 06:34:04 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/8/2012 6:28 AM, duke wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 20:26:37 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/7/2012 1:46 PM, duke wrote:

>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:32:42 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>>>> On 11/7/2012 3:08 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>> In case anyone overlooked it; Obama won.

>>>>>>> Yes, Obama won and now we are going to lose. The Republicans
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> majority in the House and have been practicing obstructionist
>>>>>>> politics
>>>>>>> and will continue to, just as the Republicans and Democrats in the
>>>>>>> Senate have been doing.
>>>>>>

>> Are you a democrat freeloader? I'm betting you're not.
>>

>> The dukester, American - American
>> ********************************************
>> You can't fix stupid.
>> ********************************************
>>
>

> I have a novel idea! How about you give me a few suggestions on how I
> can encourage Obama to help the poor without taking money from those who
> make more than most of us ?
>

> I posted a suggestion to Romney on his campaign site to which he did
> not respond. The best way to help the poor is directly. Teach them to
> develop skills that they will use to help and teach OTHERS that are poor.
> You can teach them many things, and they in turn can teach each other, and
> then fund them for an employment period of 30 days. Those that fail go to
> jobs with less responsibility and less pay, and for 2
> years they make monthly payments out of their salaries or wages to
> repay the cost of training them. To do this and make it work as it should,
> it has to be done in the private sector with oversight by
> the dept.of Education. No one knows better how to teach or make it take
> than a few GOOD educators.


rod:

> Since many of you here seem to think we are headed for a socialist
> state...how about doing some serious thinking and make it WORK FOR US!!!

sword:
OC/NC 101. Serious thinking has to be from the inside out NOT
from outside in for it to *WORK FOR US!!!*


Respectfully,
Sword

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 10:22 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
>> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
>> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>>
>> I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
>> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?
>
> How would knowing of it have changed the election results?
>

I don't know Linda, but I'm certain that it would give a few of his
supporters cause to think.

--
It is said that a man with vengeance in his heart
should dig two graves; one for his enemy and the
other for himself.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 11:04 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/2012 10:22 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
> >> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
> >> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>
> >>     I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
> >> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?
>
> > How would knowing of it have changed the election results?
>
>     I don't know Linda, but I'm certain that it would give a few of his
> supporters cause to think.

Cause to think what? That Obama brought on the attack? That Romney
would have prevented it? Drones are attacked periodically with the
claim they were invading another nation's airspace (and likely they
often are valid claims, which is good reason to play it down, if they
were actually spying).

[Rod]

I understand full well, I also understand that the work of God has to
continue and we have to make the very best of a bad situation. There are
not enough independent and republican votes in congress to stop him
anyway, and the politics of character assassination are not going to do
anything except make it hard for all of us as well as anger God.

Remember, Obama is a servant of God as well, whether he knows that or
not.

We have to make the very best of the situation and pull together as
servants of God. We have a unique opportunity to show the world what
God can accomplish when His people actually heed His VOICE !

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 8:58 PM, SwordOz wrote:
>
>
> "Rod" <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k7j2l7$64i$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 11/8/2012 1:27 AM, Pete wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 22:29:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>>> On Nov 8, 12:19 am, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:52:10 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 12:25 pm, Pete <s...@bod.cap> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:08:26 -0800 (PST), Linda Lee wrote:
>
>
> Rod wrote:
>> We need to give the man a chance to do the right thing, and by the
>> right thing I don't mean increase the debt.
>
> sword:
> Whoa ... "a chance to do the right thing"? I find it inconceivable from a
> common sense perspective how anyone could intellectually perceive that
> increasing spending is the mojo of getting out of debt.

I didn't say that it was, and I didn't imply that it is. You have
assumed such and put words in my mouth which were never their to begin
with.

What I said is right above your statement.

>
> Do you fully understand what you, your wife, your children and this nation
> stands to lose and the impending economic collapse we are heading
> towards *IF* the "right thing" is never acted upon?

Do you fully understand that the democrats hold the seats needed to
do as they want, regardless of what you like ?

People need to learn to cope with bad situations and make them better.

>
>
> rod;
>> I made a few suggestions by email and I hope they reach him, and I'm
>> working on a few other ideas
>> too, but I'm not alone in this thing.
>
> sword:
> Is this a national movement of sorts? <chuckle>

It's always easier to be negative, roll over and give up to despair
and defeatist talk.

Do as it pleases you, just as you have here...just don't expect me to
follow suit.

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 10:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:04 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2012 10:22 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
>>>> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
>>>> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>>
>>>> I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
>>>> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?
>>
>>> How would knowing of it have changed the election results?
>>
>> I don't know Linda, but I'm certain that it would give a few of his
>> supporters cause to think.
>
> Cause to think what?

You tell me, what is the most likely reason that any man running for
President would keep something like this queit until AFTER he is elected
? He was obviously worried about re-election.

That Obama brought on the attack? That Romney
> would have prevented it?

Neither of these are what I had in mind.

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 11:32 AM, duke wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2012 07:33:31 -0600, Rod <nhra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll tell you what I am for...I'm for giving him a chance to do the
>> right thing for everyone.
>
> And the reason he totally ignored the Republicans for 4 years is
> ................ what?

Is my name Obama ?? Ask him, I don't know! maybe he hates
republicans, I don't know. I do know that the poor are the last ones
that NON christian rethuglicans help.


>
>> I pay closer attention to politics than
>> some think I should...but the poor can benefit from politics as well
>> as the wealthy. I am not for taxing the wealthy, but if they are not
>> at present paying in...they should be regardless of the loopholes.
>
>> I am for creative ways of finding funding to get us out of this debt
>> we are in, and I'm thinking that oil may provide some relief.
>
> So am I. One of my favorites is that 100% of all people in the US pay federal
> taxes on income, dividends, food stamps, welfare, everything one didn't earn,
> etc.
>
>> One thing I will not do is remove Obama because he is helping the
>> poor.
>
> http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
> Executive Summary
>
> Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax. The
> Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of
> households will owe no federal income tax for 2011. [1] A widely cited figure
> is a Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that 51 percent of households paid no
> federal income tax in 2009.[2] (The TPC figure for 2009 also is 51 percent.)
> [3]
>
> These figures are sometimes cited as evidence that low- and moderate-income
> families do not pay sufficient taxes. Yet these figures, their significance,
> and their policy implications are widely misunderstood.
> �The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique
> circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled
> the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are
> particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery
> Act created � including the �Making Work Pay� tax credit and an exclusion from
> tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits � were in effect and removed
> millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these
> temporary tax measures have since expired.
>
> In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe
> federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do
> not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]
>
>> If the wealthy and the GOP can't live with that then they need
>> to have a sample of what it is like to be DIRT POOR for the poor.
>
> Dirt Poor?

Yeah you know....where you've been so long without food that even
the grub worms start to look good...this kind of poor, or the kind of
poor where the poor who are ill search trash cans and dumpsters in the
hope of finding expired meds that they may be able to use. It's the kind
of poor where you don't know when you're going to eat again or which
dumpster you'll get your next meal from...which usually consists
of food thrown out that wasn't eaten by some restaurants customers.


There certainly seems to be a lot of opposition coming from
republican Christians to the work of God...

>
> The dukester, American - American
> ********************************************
> You can't fix stupid.
> ********************************************
>

[Rod]

Long time, no see U !! Where have you been hiding ?

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 9, 11:37 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/9/2012 10:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:04 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 11/9/2012 10:22 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
> >>>> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
> >>>> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>
> >>>>      I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
> >>>> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?
>
> >>> How would knowing of it have changed the election results?
>
> >>      I don't know Linda, but I'm certain that it would give a few of his
> >> supporters cause to think.
>
> > Cause to think what?
>
>    You tell me, what is the most likely reason that any man running for
> President would keep something like this queit until AFTER he is elected
> ? He was obviously worried about re-election.

It may be you think that is "obviously" the case, but since you just
said you cannot think of any way knowledge of it might have affected
the election, your claim that it was hidden because he was "worried
about re-election" doesn't make any sense.

It's more likely that the topic was avoided for as long as possible
for the reason it is always avoided or downplayed; the drone was doing
something the U.S. government doesn't want to publicly admit it was
doing.

People want everything disclosed to them publicly, but that is not
always the wise choice, especially when we're dealing with sworn
enemies and terrorists.

Here are some recent incidences involving U.S. drones; one of them
concerning another drone over Iran (and who knows what was on that
drone's surveillance data that made them react by attacking this drone
recently):

"The U.S. deployed UAVs in Yemen to search for and kill Anwar al-
Awlaki,[107] firing at and failing to kill him at least once,[108]
before he was killed in a drone attack in Yemen on 30 September 2011.
Two weeks later, Al-Awlaki's son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, was also
killed by an American drone strike in Yemen.[109][110][111]

In December 2011, Iran captured a United States' RQ-170 unmanned
aerial vehicle which flew over Iran, and rejected President Barack
Obama's request to return it to the US.[112][113] Iranian officials
have recovered data from the U.S. surveillance drone. However, it is
not clear how Iran shot it down.[114] There have also been reports
that Iran spoofed the GPS signal used by the drone and tricked it into
landing on an Iranian runway." - from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmanned_aerial_vehicle#Historical_events_involving_UAVs

[Rod]

I'm sorry..I took it for granted that this group had a few adults who
are able to offer constructive suggestions. I should have put that
forward up front for you.

I now know to ignore your posts.

Thank you for the suggestion..



>
>
> Respectfully,
> Sword

[Rod]

On 11/9/2012 10:58 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
> On Nov 9, 11:37 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/9/2012 10:10 PM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 9, 11:04 pm, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/9/2012 10:22 AM, Linda Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Rod <nhraf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I learned that the administration had concealed the fact
>>>>>> that Iran had shot down one of our drones BEFORE the election. I do not
>>>>>> fully trust Obama or his administration because of these things.
>>
>>>>>> I don't need any more proof than this of someone priorities being
>>>>>> wrong, verging on criminal...but what is your idea on it ?
>>
>>>>> How would knowing of it have changed the election results?
>>
>>>> I don't know Linda, but I'm certain that it would give a few of his
>>>> supporters cause to think.
>>
>>> Cause to think what?
>>
>> You tell me, what is the most likely reason that any man running for
>> President would keep something like this queit until AFTER he is elected
>> ? He was obviously worried about re-election.
>
> It may be you think that is "obviously" the case, but since you just
> said you cannot think of any way knowledge of it might have affected
> the election, your claim that it was hidden because he was "worried
> about re-election" doesn't make any sense.

It will if you take into account that not everyone exercises their
best judgement when in the ballot box.

>
> It's more likely that the topic was avoided for as long as possible
> for the reason it is always avoided or downplayed; the drone was doing
> something the U.S. government doesn't want to publicly admit it was
> doing.

And it is very likely, though after the benghazi incident I'm thinking
that Obama made a choice to cut his losses and cover himself
politically. Since he is now elected little to nothing can be done
to him for revealing it AFTER the election.

[Linda Lee]

That has nothing to do with the fact that you couldn't think of any
way in which the drone incident would have affected the election one
way or another.

>
>
>
> > It's more likely that the topic was avoided for as long as possible
> > for the reason it is always avoided or downplayed; the drone was doing
> > something the U.S. government doesn't want to publicly admit it was
> > doing.
>
>    And it is very likely, though after the benghazi incident

So Obama is responsible for not preventing an attack? There are always
such claims when we're attacked. Why not blame the attackers? You
want all this knowledge made public, and then you gripe when their
undercover surveillance doesn't reveal everything to them in advance
so attacks could be prevented. Governments are secretive, and they
have to be. I had Secret clearance for the government once, and they
said they would, and they actually did, check out my background for
the previous 20 years. I thought I'd see some pretty interesting
communications, but Secret clearance is nothing much; you have to have
Top Secret clearance to see much. But I did have to send codes and so
I saw things like how many body bags were ordered during the Gulf War,
which our enemies would like to have known because it shows how many
casualties we expected and when, which might give them a clue to the
time and the enormity of a strike. And our buyers were canned
immediately if they took as much as a coffee cup from some procurer,
because spies were constantly trying to get on their good side to find
out such things.

[Linda Lee]

On Nov 10, 12:29 am, Pete <d...@kn.app> wrote:

> I never tried too.

Then don't expect your accusations to be taken seriously.

>
> >> I even have some rather well know
> >> liberal authors who now question their original papers and thinking.
>
> > You have them? Where?
>

> I had them here. All were published publicly on the net.

I don't read everything on the net.

> All my email has been cleaned up with anything pertinent. All I can say is
> that a person should really learn to exercise faith for daily living. Which
> is a good idea in any event.

>
>
>
> >>>> Had God wanted to lengthen out the
> >>>> time of His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that the
> >>>> outcome would have been different.
>
> >>> Huh? If God, for some reason, "had wanted to lengthen out the time of
> >>> His return He would have changed enough hearts of men so that" the
> >>> Repuglicans would have won the election?
>
> >> That is funny. Republican equals Godliness?
>
> > No, rather the Repuglicans are equated with ungodliness. But it is you
> > who said "the outcome" of the election "would have been different",
> > and there were only two people running who had any chance of winning.
>

> And there were millions who voted for them they could not change the
> election by their votes, only the people can, regardless of what party they
> were in. These are the people I was speaking of. I also did not mention
> party anyone can vote for one or the other regardless of their party so I
> didn't look at them as a party member just the man that they stood for.
> Those who vote partyline have no brains.

>
>
>
> >>>> SO that our nation would become stronger
> >>>> financially, morally, and so on.
>
> >>> The return of the Lord isn't dependent upon those things. And what
> >>> makes you think people that are lowdown and morally corrupt enough to
> >>> spread malicious lies in order to win an election would suddenly
> >>> become morally upright if they won the election? You're dreaming.
>
> >> You have mixed reality with ideologies, never a good idea.
>
> > I think you're talking about yourself there.
>

> I do not spread lies.

What does that have to do with what was said?

>
>
>
> >>> The Republicans have really been showing their hand the last 12 years
> >>> especially, beginning with George W. Bush pulling a coup and stealing
> >>> the election from Al Gore with the help of Florida Governor Jeb Bush,
> >>> Bush's brother, and Bush's first cousin John W. Ellis, who ignored the
> >>> popular vote in Florida. These Repuglicans want power at any price.
>
> >> Good grief!! I am not even going to comment on that.
>
> > There's no need for you to comment; I saw it with my own eyes;
> > suddenly the streets of the city I worked in was filled with the
> > homeless on the downtown streets. You were accosted with the shouts of
> > the insane when you walked off the bus, and you were confronted with
> > an uncountable number of terribly injured beggars on your lunchbreak.
> > I even saw people climbing out of the weeds on the edge of the city
> > looking like they'd just woken up. And they'd sleep in the alleys
> > because the heat from the buildings warmed the alleys. You'd go into
> > McDonald's to eat, and they would be cleaning up in the bathroom. And
> > a month before Reagan's hardhearted decision, none of those people
> > were anywhere around there. It was pretty incredible and really sad. I
> > was followed more than one time by unbalanced people. I quit working
> > downtown; it was no longer safe. These people who obviously needed
> > care had had a roof over their heads before Reagan.
>

> So you say you live in California? You know? Reagans been gone a very, very
> long time. Nothing has changed since. All those bleeding hearts that cared,
> where are they? It is all news hype. Billions for schools, nothing for the
> homeless. The biggest reason for that is actually the ACLU and all their
> lawsuits. They demanded freedom for those people you spoke of,

They demanded freedom for people who were amputees?

> and the
> court gave it too them. Only if they are a proven danger to themselves and
> others are they separated from society. Family members cannot get their
> relatives picked up for more than three days no matter how looney they are.

The ones I'm thinking of were obviously a danger to themselves and
others. If they weren't, they would have just blended into the crowd.

>
>
>
> >>>> Now that we are in the same status of decline, and socialism on the rise
> >>>> especially in the forced health care scenario where life is valued on
> >>>> personal productivity for the state.
>
> >>> Huh? You're making a lot of unproven claims.
>
> >> Only if ones head is in the sand.
>
> > You've proved nothing at all here!  Prove something, then you can make
> > such comments without looking foolish.
>

> Anyone looks foolish to you. I cannot force you to read, nor even be
> interested in something you complain about.

YOU are the one complaining and making unsupported accusations. Maybe
you believe everything you read; I don't.

> If you choose not to see things
> that are in print everyday that is your choice.

And maybe you're one of those who jumps to unwarranted conclusions,
who watch Fox News, those kind of people.

> The problems are still
> there, they haven't disappeared, it is sort of like your Reagan thing.
> Those people were all around you before, but then you learned of the
> decision and the release of the people, and voila! All these people came
> from no where. Most were there all the time.

Baloney. They were not downtown in that city before I noticed them.
You couldn't miss them.