Mitt Rommey is a MAN OF ACTION, and will SAVE OUR COUNTRY!!!
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!
else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
* Lower taxes
* Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
* More employment
* The end of budget deficits
* Lowering of the National Debt (sorry China, we want our country
BACK!)
So everyone please SAVE THE COUNTRY! VOTE ROMMEY IN 2012!!!!
"Can't wait for 2012!!!!"
:D
ZZH...@yahoo.com
Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!" <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
>else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
>Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>
>* Lower taxes
Yeah he'll lower taxes and jack up fees twice as much.
A fee = a tax
A tax = a fee.
>* Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
Yeah he'll replace it with Romneycare.
>* More employment
Unemployment will go through the roof when corporations
follow Romneys lead at Baine Capital.
>* The end of budget deficits
Like how he elminated the budget deficit before he fled Massachusetts.
And don't forget how he cleaned up the Big Dig before he left
Massachussetts just like he promised.
Dano
<ZZH...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gqcig69c1115895hf...@4ax.com...
But he has great hair. Might be enough for America today.
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - FULL OF WIN!!! :D
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never know. Reading a teleprompter effectively was enough last time
out.
Eddie Haskell
"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - FULL OF WIN!!! :D" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote
in message
news:a5757963-73d8-42b3...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, and saying stupid things eloquently.
-Eddie Haskell
7...@gmail.com
wrote:
Just like it did for John Edwards.
N...@gmail.com
FULL OF WIN!!! :D" <oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Never know. Reading a teleprompter effectively was enough last time
>out.
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - FULL OF WIN!!! :D
BDS IS A HELLUVA DRUG!!!
:D
ray
<a5757963-73d8-42b3...@v17g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - FULL OF WIN!!! :D"
<oneilsp...@aol.com> wrote:
And the only thing the TelePrompTer displayed was "change, change,
change."
--
Barock Insane Obama: The greatest joke America ever played on itself.
Jane_Galt
--
- Jane Galt
"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property
rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material
goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed
to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his
effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men
into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to
'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat
human beings as chattel." -- Ayn Rand
Jane_Galt
> Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
> else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
> Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>
> * Lower taxes
> * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
Uh wait, didn't he give ObamaCare to MA before Obama was even elected, and
bankrupt them with it? Phhtttt!
bmo...@nyx.net
> "Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property
> rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material
> goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed
> to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his
> effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men
> into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to
> 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat
> human beings as chattel." -- Ayn Rand
If I may, and I know it's not good netiquette to respond to a .sig,
but
> Since material
> goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed
> to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his
> effort, he does not own his life.
is the philosophical mistake in Rand's argument. In particular, the
part that says
> if the producer does not own the result of his
> effort, he does not own his life.
BTW, I am not against property rights. I am in favor of them. But this
is nonetheless a flaw in Rand's argument. I would enjoy discussing
this with anyone who can follow a philosphical argument. I'm guessing
maybe 1 or 2 of you can.
Jane_Galt
How is it a mistake?
If you own your life, why would you not own what you spend your life to
produce?
--
- Jane Galt
bmo...@nyx.net
Because you can own your life without necessarily owning all of what
you produce. There is more that defines our identity. It is not simply
what we produce, nor is owning all that we produce sufficient or (and
this is the controversial part) even necessary for us to own our
lives.
P = owning all one produces
L = owning ones life
(P -> L) is false
(L -> P) is false
It is even possible for a slave to own his life. Not that I favor
slavery :-)
Jane_Galt
Why not though? Isnt it a right to own what you spend your life to produce?
Assuming you own your life?
Look, your life is the highest thing of value that you own. If you spend it
to work for 2 hours and earn, say $40, why would you NOT own that $40?
> There is more that defines our identity.
That should be up to each of us, eh?
> It is not simply
> what we produce, nor is owning all that we produce sufficient or (and
> this is the controversial part) even necessary for us to own our
> lives.
>
> P = owning all one produces
>
> L = owning ones life
>
> (P -> L) is false
>
> (L -> P) is false
>
> It is even possible for a slave to own his life. Not that I favor
> slavery :-)
Not really, no. A slave's life is owned by his master, he is considered
property. The people of North Korea, for example, are considered property
of the state. They dont own their lives and they dont own what they spend
their lives to produce.
In a theoretically free country, you would own both.
--
- Jane Galt
"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus
'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since
material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and
are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result
of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to
turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to
'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to
treat human beings as chattel." -- Ayn Rand
nate
> --
> - Jane Galt
"Who are you?"
heh,
- nate
bmo...@nyx.net
You're confusing your if-thens.
>
> Look, your life is the highest thing of value that you own. If you spend it
> to work for 2 hours and earn, say $40, why would you NOT own that $40?
>
> > There is more that defines our identity.
>
> That should be up to each of us, eh?
I guess. Isn't it possible that you are a certain thing and Ayn Rand's
writings can't change what you actually are?
> > It is not simply
> > what we produce, nor is owning all that we produce sufficient or (and
> > this is the controversial part) even necessary for us to own our
> > lives.
>
> > P = owning all one produces
>
> > L = owning ones life
>
> > (P -> L) is false
>
> > (L -> P) is false
>
> > It is even possible for a slave to own his life. Not that I favor
> > slavery :-)
>
> Not really, no. A slave's life is owned by his master, he is considered
> property.
Being considered property is not the same as being property. Now we
are at a point in our discussion where I think we need to ask "what
does it mean to be property?". And also (not redundantly) "what does
it mean to be free?" Are they opposites? And BTW, these questions need
to be asked for the individual, not just the people as a whole.
> The people of North Korea, for example, are considered property
> of the state. They dont own their lives and they dont own what they spend
> their lives to produce.
I 100% agree that the North Koreans lack rights. And are treated very
unfairly.
> In a theoretically free country, you would own both.
I would say degrees of both. You own neither fully. It's part of being
in a community.
Lubow
Latest Poll!!" <accoun...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
Please stop posting your off topic bullshit to the NY Giants
newsgroup. The Pats fans alone, who justify cheating at any level,
deserve you and your candidate.
ray
"Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!"
> <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote :
>
> > Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
> > else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
> > Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
> >
> > * Lower taxes
> > * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
>
> Uh wait, didn't he give ObamaCare to MA before Obama was even elected, and
> bankrupt them with it? Phhtttt!
Yes. But YourBama is a dumb educated man. He scores a zero when it
comes to common sense. A person with logic would have looked at MA and
said "Gee...... that sure as hell doesn't work." But not YourBama.
This so-called President reminds me of a friend we used to play poker
with. He was terrible at it. He would be betting money and raising
bets because all he needed was a jack of clubs to make a killer hand,
but never looked on the table where the jack of clubs lay face up for
all to see.
Dano
"Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
>
> That should be up to each of us, eh?
>
Sure. If you would wish to live alone on an island and not as a fully
functioning member of society.
Humans are social creatures. It's what sets us apart from the rest of the
animal world. You can't have a civilization without being sociable to some
extent. What is society a root word of? Socialism. We are ALL of us
socialists to some degree.
I really wish you WOULD find that island.
Dano
Mitt Romney is a liar and a horse's ass.
Dewey
420853...@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com:
> Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
> else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
> Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>
> * Lower taxes
> * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
>
You are aware that Mitt Romney is the author of the healthcare reform in
Massachusetts that "ObamaCare" was based on, aren't you?
Obviously not. You are simply a know-nothing buffoon.
ROMNEY WROTE OBAMACARE YOU IDIOT. Can you get that into your idiot
skull?
--
"Building a mosque near Ground Zero is like building a church
across the street from the Federal Building in Oklahoma City."
- what you will never hear from a "Ground Zero Mosque" protester
Dewey
news:0294cf34-fad8-4262...@f21g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to communal
good is intolerable. This is ultimately the entire theme of the
Fountainhead and the anti-theme of Anthem.
Dewey
news:ieii31$7ch$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
The key part being "to some degree". Objectivism basically precludes any
notion of society. That's abundantly clear in Howard Roarke's "I don't
give a rat's ass about anyone but myself" attitude.
Dewey
september.org:
>
> Mitt Romney is a liar and a horse's ass.
>
There's that too.
Dewey
> In article <Xns9E51C7CD17AE2J...@216.196.97.142>,
> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>
>> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!"
>> <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote :
>>
>> > Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
>> > else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to
>> > NORMALCY!! Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>> >
>> > * Lower taxes
>> > * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
>>
>> Uh wait, didn't he give ObamaCare to MA before Obama was even
>> elected, and bankrupt them with it? Phhtttt!
>
> Yes. But YourBama is a dumb educated man. He scores a zero when it
> comes to common sense. A person with logic would have looked at MA
> and said "Gee...... that sure as hell doesn't work." But not
> YourBama.
>
Good point except that it's wrong. RomneyCare actually does work. But
maybe you prefer BrewerCare.
> This so-called President reminds me of a friend we used to play poker
> with. He was terrible at it. He would be betting money and raising
> bets because all he needed was a jack of clubs to make a killer hand,
> but never looked on the table where the jack of clubs lay face up for
> all to see.
>
This president sure has you jerked around. Too funny.
Jane_Galt
>
>> In a theoretically free country, you would own both.
>
> I would say degrees of both. You own neither fully. It's part of being
> in a community.
>
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of
their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our
natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a
natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this
is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the
natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is
all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to be
the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit to
the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced
all this, they have fulfilled their functions; and ***the idea is quite
unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.****" -
Thomas Jefferson
--
- Jane Galt
"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property
rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material
goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed
Jane_Galt
> Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a mafia.
> Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to communal
> good is intolerable
Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
--
- Jane Galt
"Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property
rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material
goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed
Jane_Galt
BS.
> I really wish you WOULD find that island.
I wish people like you would immigrate to North Korea and leave us to be
free.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of
their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our
natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a
natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this
is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the
natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is
all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to
be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit
to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and
enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions; and ****the idea is
quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
****" - Thomas Jefferson
Jane_Galt
> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:ieii31$7ch$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
>>>
>>> That should be up to each of us, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. If you would wish to live alone on an island and not as a fully
>> functioning member of society.
>>
>> Humans are social creatures. It's what sets us apart from the rest of
>> the animal world. You can't have a civilization without being
>> sociable to some extent. What is society a root word of? Socialism.
>> We are ALL of us socialists to some degree.
>>
>> I really wish you WOULD find that island.
>>
> The key part being "to some degree". Objectivism basically precludes any
> notion of society. That's abundantly clear in Howard Roarke's "I don't
> give a rat's ass about anyone but myself" attitude.
>
You dont know what you're talking about.
All Objectivism says is that relationships between people and society
should be voluntary.
Send me to a gulag for wanting freedom, comrade.
Jane_Galt
Dont call him myBama, I wouldnt vote for him if it was a soviet election
and he was the only one running!
Jane_Galt
> ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in news:ieidu...@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9E51C7CD17AE2J...@216.196.97.142>,
>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>>
>>> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!"
>>> <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote :
>>>
>>> > Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
>>> > else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to
>>> > NORMALCY!! Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>>> >
>>> > * Lower taxes
>>> > * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
>>>
>>> Uh wait, didn't he give ObamaCare to MA before Obama was even
>>> elected, and bankrupt them with it? Phhtttt!
>>
>> Yes. But YourBama is a dumb educated man. He scores a zero when it
>> comes to common sense. A person with logic would have looked at MA
>> and said "Gee...... that sure as hell doesn't work." But not
>> YourBama.
>>
> Good point except that it's wrong. RomneyCare actually does work. But
> maybe you prefer BrewerCare.
http://daytontribune.com/romneycare-is-bankrupting-massachusetts-–-
obamacare-will-bankrupt-the-country/75912/
Just google: Romneycare and bankrupt
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> "Building a mosque near Ground Zero is like building a church
> across the street from the Federal Building in Oklahoma City."
>
> - what you will never hear from a "Ground Zero Mosque" protester
One HUGE problem with this post.
McVeigh was anti-government. His "religion" had nothing to do with his
actions.
Meanwhile, Muslim scum kill, maim and murder because of their
religion!
Yet this "Dewey" assbag still posts ignorant and moronic shit.
Why do we let autistic idiotic fucktards have access to computers like
us intelligent people??
Congress needs to pass a law against these ginourmously stewpid
retards!!
mr dude
Dano
"Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
<snip of just the worthless bullshit portions>
See ya "Jane". You are irrelevant.
Dewey
news:Xns9E52DBD2E1ECJa...@216.196.97.142:
> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>> Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>
> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a
> mafia.
>
>> Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to
>> communal good is intolerable
>
> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>
The entire idea of community is incompatible with her philosphy of the
individual first and foremost. Objectivism boils down to "each man for
himself." It doesn't matter if she "says" something if that something is
logically inconsistent with the rest of her ideology.
Dewey
news:Xns9E52DC1B8EFA9J...@216.196.97.142:
> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
>>
>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
>>>
>>> That should be up to each of us, eh?
>>>
>>
>> Sure. If you would wish to live alone on an island and not as a
>> fully functioning member of society.
>>
>> Humans are social creatures. It's what sets us apart from the rest
>> of the animal world. You can't have a civilization without being
>> sociable to some extent. What is society a root word of? Socialism.
>> We are ALL of us socialists to some degree.
>
> BS.
>
You seem to be incapable of actually refuting anything anyone says.
Yelling "BULLSHIT" is not a logical counterargument. The fact of the
matter is that for the past several million years, mankind and its
ancestors have always, that's *ALWAYS*, formed tribes and other
associations for mutual benefit.
>> I really wish you WOULD find that island.
>
> I wish people like you would immigrate to North Korea and leave us to
> be free.
>
> "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits
> of their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only
> our natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man
> has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of
> another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him;
> every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities
> of the society, and this is all the laws should enforce on him; and,
> no man having a natural right to be the judge between himself and
> another, it is his natural duty to submit to the umpirage of an
> impartial third. When the laws have declared and enforced all this,
> they have fulfilled their functions; and ****the idea is quite
> unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
> ****" - Thomas Jefferson
>
Sidestep.
Dewey
news:Xns9E52DC55E3904J...@216.196.97.142:
> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>> "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:ieii31$7ch$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> That should be up to each of us, eh?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sure. If you would wish to live alone on an island and not as a
>>> fully functioning member of society.
>>>
>>> Humans are social creatures. It's what sets us apart from the rest
>>> of the animal world. You can't have a civilization without being
>>> sociable to some extent. What is society a root word of?
>>> Socialism. We are ALL of us socialists to some degree.
>>>
>>> I really wish you WOULD find that island.
>>>
>> The key part being "to some degree". Objectivism basically precludes
>> any notion of society. That's abundantly clear in Howard Roarke's "I
>> don't give a rat's ass about anyone but myself" attitude.
>>
>
> You dont know what you're talking about.
>
Well there's a stunningly logical and well thought out counter argument.
> All Objectivism says is that relationships between people and society
> should be voluntary.
>
It doesn't. But even if it did, it doesn't matter if that is logically
inconsistent with the rest of the ideology.
> Send me to a gulag for wanting freedom, comrade.
>
Yet another brilliant and well thought argument.
RickyBobby
"O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!" wrote in
message
news:f6803e9d-8357-4197...@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls, who
else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to NORMALCY!!
Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
* Lower taxes
* Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
* More employment
* The end of budget deficits
* Lowering of the National Debt (sorry China, we want our country
BACK!)
So everyone please SAVE THE COUNTRY! VOTE ROMMEY IN 2012!!!!
"Can't wait for 2012!!!!"
:D
I was sad to see that the fat cats are only getting an average 20 million
dollar bonus for eliminating American jobs and foreclosing on homeowners.
When Mitt Romney gets elected his supporters can expect their robber baron
bonuses to top 30 million dollars per year.
It would be a shame if President Obama would use his "socialist" policies to
reestablish an actual middle class in America.
I feel that union laborers, first responders, and school teachers are
getting paid far too much under this socialist President Obama. Cut them to
the bone so that the top 2% of Republicans can control 95% of the wealth of
the country instead of the paltry share they control now.
Let the poor learn to live on rice and beans and like it as multimillionaire
cult radio personality Dave Ramsey preaches.
Lower taxes for rich people and lower wages for poor people is the Mitt
Romney platform. And annual bonuses paid to fat cats should be completely
tax free.
Mitt Romney and Dave Ramsey both agree that rich people should not pay
taxes. Dave Ramsey is just a Republican spokesman who preaches rice and
beans for poor people.
ray
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
More gloom and doom from the left I see. Well, I guess that's all you
have; scare tactics and lies.
N...@gmail.com
>> across the street from the Federal Building in Oklahoma City."
in the South Tower.
One other problems with this.....there was a second mosque in the
WTC in the North Tower.l
Oh and the mosque they want to put in the former Burlington
Coat three blocks from Ground Zero.................there has been
a mosque four blocks from Ground Zero. It was built before the
WTC was built.
RickyBobby
"ray" wrote in message news:ielji...@news5.newsguy.com...
--
You do not have to believe me. Cult figure Dave Ramsey is on the radio
fifteen hours each week. Just listen to him rail on about rich people like
himself being expected to pay taxes.
He says that he earned all of those tens of millions of dollars per year by
the sweat of his brow and how dare Washington try to steal his money from
him in the form of taxes?
Poor people should man up and wean themselves off of that ground beef and
chicken and learn to live on beans and rice.
Rich people like Dave Ramsey and Matt Romney should have all of the steak
and lobster because they earned it. To heck with paying any taxes on their
immense wealth and income because they want to leave a little legacy to
their family when they pass.
So when the wealthy people pass there should be no estate tax because their
family deserves to be the wealthy and ruling and non-taxpaying class.
That is the Republican platform in a nutshell. The rich get even richer and
the poor get even poorer.
Dewey
news:Xns9E52DD193C919J...@216.196.97.142:
> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>> ray <xxxr...@aol.com> wrote in news:ieidu...@news5.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9E51C7CD17AE2J...@216.196.97.142>,
>>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!"
>>>> <acco...@rocketmail.com> wrote :
>>>>
>>>> > Now that Mitt Rommey leads all challengers in the latest polls,
>>>> > who else here feels as giddy as I do? Excited about a return to
>>>> > NORMALCY!! Rommey will FIGHT FOR US, so we can return to:
>>>> >
>>>> > * Lower taxes
>>>> > * Elimination of Obamacare (are you listening, Democrats?)
>>>>
>>>> Uh wait, didn't he give ObamaCare to MA before Obama was even
>>>> elected, and bankrupt them with it? Phhtttt!
>>>
>>> Yes. But YourBama is a dumb educated man. He scores a zero when it
>>> comes to common sense. A person with logic would have looked at MA
>>> and said "Gee...... that sure as hell doesn't work." But not
>>> YourBama.
>>>
>> Good point except that it's wrong. RomneyCare actually does work. But
>> maybe you prefer BrewerCare.
>
> http://daytontribune.com/romneycare-is-bankrupting-massachusetts-–-
> obamacare-will-bankrupt-the-country/75912/
>
> Just google: Romneycare and bankrupt
>
Well that's conclusive, isn't it?
Since RomneyCare passed, annual premium increases have shrunk. We used
to get 15-20% bumps each year. Now they are below 10%. Did you expect a
miracle, overnight fix?
Quick answers are the sign of a small mind.
Dewey
news:39851728-a83e-47d4...@n10g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 18, 1:46 pm, Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Building a mosque near Ground Zero is like building a church
>> across the street from the Federal Building in Oklahoma City."
>>
>> - what you will never hear from a "Ground Zero Mosque" protester
>
> One HUGE problem with this post.
>
> McVeigh was anti-government. His "religion" had nothing to do with his
> actions.
>
Untrue. His actions were in direct response to government intervention
with fringe religious sects. You have heard of Branch Davidians, haven't
you?
> Meanwhile, Muslim scum kill, maim and murder because of their
> religion!
>
Again untrue. They murder in contradiction of their religion.
> Yet this "Dewey" assbag still posts ignorant and moronic shit.
>
Name calling and ad hominem attacks. Why am I not surprised.
> Why do we let autistic idiotic fucktards have access to computers like
> us intelligent people??
>
From a person who cannot make a single point of logic, this is amusing.
> Congress needs to pass a law against these ginourmously stewpid
> retards!!
>
Why do you need the Nanny Government to take care of you?
--
Dewey
> In article <-8SdnSHjqfb60ZPQ...@giganews.com>,
> "RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> "O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Rommey Beats Obama in Latest Poll!!"
>> wrote in message
>> news:f6803e9d-8357-4197-ac0f-42085360eff7
@m11g2000vbs.googlegroups.com
>> ...
WMD
WMD
WMD
WMD
RickyBobby
"Dewey" wrote in message
news:Xns9E53987C3E73Ade...@130.133.4.11...
WMD
WMD
WMD
WMD
You are not supposed to bring up WMD because that is supposed to be
forgotten by now. Bush/Cheney/Halliburton made at least 383 billion
dollars off of that imaginary war and still counting. Those three thousand
gap toothed mouthing breathing low class kids who died over there were just
cannon fodder for the big money machine.
Any rich Republicans died in Iraq recently? I very much doubt it. Were
there ever any WMD? I very much doubt it.
Facts are just facts and no more and no less.
The people who chose to attack America on 9/11/2001 were Saudi Arabians.
Not Iraqis and not Afghanis.
People are pissed off that Barack Obama is our President? Good. Let them
be pissed off. Maybe he is not so deeply enmeshed in the don't know, don't
tell to actually tell us the truth.
My suggestion is that on 1/11/2011 everybody put everything on the table.
UN, Europe, Russia, UAE, NATO, Australia, Brazil, and so on and so on.
On 1/11/2011 just have a big old meeting and bitchfest and everybody lay
their cards down on the table.
And put it on television.
There is no need for people in North Korea to go to be hungry. No need at
all. There is no need for people is Haiti to be helpless. No need at all.
There is no need for people in Chechnya to feel misunderstood. No need at
all. There is no need for people in Indonesia to toil in factories for
pitiful low wages. No need at all. There is no need for a broad swath of
Africa to always be on the desperate edge of survival.
We can move food. We can even move water. We can move medicine and doctors
and nurses. We can move vaccines. We can move sleeping nets.
What we cannot move is honesty and decency.
Honesty and decency have to come from within.
Canada, the USA, and Mexico are just one big happy family. There is utmost
honesty and decency in Canada. There is somewhat less honesty and decency
in the money-grubbing USA. There is no honesty and decency in criminal
Mexico. So how do you resolve this or at least balance it out a little bit?
I purely do not know. If I knew they would give me the Nobel Prize. I
ain't no Gandhi or Mother Teresa but if I did know I would get to work on
these issues.
ray
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
You don't understand the conservative Republican platform.
Conservatives believe that all be treated the exact same way. What a
man makes is rightfully his. Nobody should have their hands in your
pockets, and nobody should be feeding you their money.
We are fortunate enough to live in a country where the individual makes
choices on how they live. If you want to be poor, don't work and be
poor. If you want to be middle class, learn a trade and be middle
class. If you want to live upper middle class, then go to college or
start your own business and be upper middle class.
The problem with the estate tax is that it's money that was already
taxed. What's fair about taxing it twice? It's a real socialist
attitude that leads to the belief that when a man worked hard all of his
life and passes away, the government has more rights to his labor than
his own family.
If you believe in the concept of taking from one because he has it to
take, and give it to another who has less, why stop there?
When a person has a beautiful landscaped yard with dozens of hedges and
flowers, why not have the government take some of his hedges and flowers
and give it to a person with none in his yard? If a man has three big
screen televisions in his home, why not have government take two of
those televisions and give them to somebody that only has a 19 inch
television or none at all? Maybe somebody likes to collect classic
guitars. The government should come in and take a few of his guitars
and give them to somebody that has no guitar but wants one.
If you think this plan is ridiculous, then why is it not ridiculous when
we are talking about money? Money is property no different than cars,
televisions or a stamp collection.
RickyBobby
"ray" wrote in message news:iem3q...@news5.newsguy.com...
So the bankers do not have their hands in the pocket of the working man?
So the bankers do not entice the working man or woman to buy things they
cannot afford on terms?
So the real estate dealers and the car dealers and the stores do not sell
things to people who cannot afford them?
So it is just a coincidence that every pawn shop and payday loan stores and
lottery outlet is in a poor neighborhood?
You evil rich people know what you are doing to people yet you do it anyhow.
I wish that you would all choke on your ill gotten money and die.
ray
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
> When a person has a beautiful landscaped yard with dozens of hedges and
> flowers, why not have the government take some of his hedges and flowers
> and give it to a person with none in his yard? If a man has three big
> screen televisions in his home, why not have government take two of
> those televisions and give them to somebody that only has a 19 inch
> television or none at all? Maybe somebody likes to collect classic
> guitars. The government should come in and take a few of his guitars
> and give them to somebody that has no guitar but wants one.
>
> If you think this plan is ridiculous, then why is it not ridiculous when
> we are talking about money? Money is property no different than cars,
> televisions or a stamp collection.
> So the bankers do not have their hands in the pocket of the working man?
>
> So the bankers do not entice the working man or woman to buy things they
> cannot afford on terms?
>
> So the real estate dealers and the car dealers and the stores do not sell
> things to people who cannot afford them?
>
> So it is just a coincidence that every pawn shop and payday loan stores and
> lottery outlet is in a poor neighborhood?
>
> You evil rich people know what you are doing to people yet you do it anyhow.
>
> I wish that you would all choke on your ill gotten money and die.
Who has money? I'm a local truck driver and landlord. I'm in debt like
most Americans. I'm very overt about who I am. Ask any member that has
been here for a few years. I live in Cleveland, and will be out of the
door at 6:15 in the morning and probably won't come home until 6:00 at
night.
The difference between government stealing your money and the banks or
the real estate agent is that you agreed to use their service for
whatever reasons or terms. With government, you have no option. When
they decide to take it, they just take it unlike banks or car
dealerships.
Walter E Williams, the great economist, put it best: if I took a gun,
robbed a person, and took that money to an elderly lady who was in need
of medical care, did I commit a crime since I did not use it for my own
benefit? Of course I did. The cops would catch me, throw me in jail,
and the judge would likely impose a prison sentence. Yet when
government does the exact same thing, it's not only legal, but applauded
as well.
When I discuss these issues with people like you, what I usually find is
that they never took chances in their life. They never studied the
market or any other investments. With the exception of IRA's or
retirement accounts, they never risked their own money. They never took
any college classes. They got a job like most Americans, and became
dependent on employers alone for financial stability. When they
realized that the employer did not provide for their needs, they blamed
the government or employer, and not themselves.
RickyBobby
"ray" wrote in message news:iemeo...@news5.newsguy.com...
Ray,
Most people do have jobs. If they can find one and keep it.
I go to my local strip mall pretty much every day. I cannot tell you how
many Italian restaurants and hair cutting places have gone in and out over
the years. I figure that every failed business that went in and out took
every cent from some individual or family. A lot of people risk their own
money.
I am not saying that there is no money left to be made in America. I am
just saying that it is a lot harder than it ever has been.
bmo...@nyx.net
> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>
> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a mafia.
Why can't it be somewhere in between?
> > Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to communal
> > good is intolerable
>
> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
Unless one lives on a desert island, it is not possible to completely
live apart from society. You have no choice in the matter. Glib
insults of "commie" etc. don't change the reality.
Dewey
news:c3a4fc66-92d7-431e...@u9g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
What Jane doesn't understand is that every relationship involves at
least 2 people who have to come to an agreement on a common framework.
Even Howard Roarke capitulated to Gail Wynand (and vice versa). And
Roarke was dependent on Dominique Francon at several points in the
story. If Roarke, the greatest "lone wolf" in all of Rand's writings,
couldn't "go it alone" then it stands to reason that such is not
possible. Even Rand was forced to accept that in a work of fiction where
she could have easily made him an empirical force above all others.
--
If I were a cactus, I wouldn't need so much water.
ray
"RickyBobby" <nasc...@cox.net> wrote:
> Walter E Williams, the great economist, put it best: if I took a gun,
> robbed a person, and took that money to an elderly lady who was in need
> of medical care, did I commit a crime since I did not use it for my own
> benefit? Of course I did. The cops would catch me, throw me in jail,
> and the judge would likely impose a prison sentence. Yet when
> government does the exact same thing, it's not only legal, but applauded
> as well.
>
> When I discuss these issues with people like you, what I usually find is
> that they never took chances in their life. They never studied the
> market or any other investments. With the exception of IRA's or
> retirement accounts, they never risked their own money. They never took
> any college classes. They got a job like most Americans, and became
> dependent on employers alone for financial stability. When they
> realized that the employer did not provide for their needs, they blamed
> the government or employer, and not themselves.
> Ray,
>
> Most people do have jobs. If they can find one and keep it.
>
> I go to my local strip mall pretty much every day. I cannot tell you how
> many Italian restaurants and hair cutting places have gone in and out over
> the years. I figure that every failed business that went in and out took
> every cent from some individual or family. A lot of people risk their own
> money.
>
> I am not saying that there is no money left to be made in America. I am
> just saying that it is a lot harder than it ever has been.
Yes it is, but that's my point. Nobody has sympathy for the individual
or family when their business goes down the toilet, but everybody is
quick to attack the few that survive and succeed. These successful
businesses faced the same challenges as those who failed. Why should we
punish them because they did something you and I didn't have the balls
to do?
During the Bush years, people would come here to newsgroups and complain
that there was no work in the field they were educated in, and they
didn't know what to do. So I suggested to them that they do what I did,
and become a truck driver. I chose this field of work because no matter
what economic conditions, there was always a demand for good drivers.
It may not be the kind of work you like, the hours you want, or the pay
you would like, but it still provides a pretty good living, and you are
always in demand.
The most common response I got was "But I don't want to drive a truck!"
Well...... do you think I do? When I decided on this career, the most
transcending aspect of this career was that there was always work, and I
wouldn't be in newsgroups somewhere complaining about the President not
creating the perfect job for me.
The point here is that in this great country of ours, there is always
something one can do to stabilize their financial outlook. But many
don't want to take the chances, work, or risks that others have, and
expect those other people to provide for them as well as themselves.
A true story here: Back in the Reagan days, unemployment was much worse
than it is today. I read a story about a local guy who was on
unemployment because his shop closed up. With nothing to do, he decided
to do the job he dreaded the most; clean up the dog shit in his back
yard. While doing the chore, a lightbulb lit over his head.
With his rusty old van, he started his own dog shit business. Like
landscaping work or snow plowing, he offered contracts to people to come
out for a fee, and clean up their yard. Business grew, and he had to
purchase another van and hire people for the work he could not handle.
Another story I read was about a guy in Japan who owned some property
downtown. There were a lot of rental properties there, and people could
not own pets. So he took his property, and rented dogs to people.
Business people would come to his lot during lunch or after work, rent a
dog, and walk and play with it. Again, business grew, and he had to get
more dogs to meet the demand.
Some businesses can be started with just about nothing. My employer
started off with a deliver van. Customers suggested he get a truck for
larger loads. Today, my employer has three deliver vans, eight straight
trucks and two tractor-trailers.
Jane_Galt
>
> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in message
>
><snip of just the worthless bullshit portions>
>
> See ya "Jane". You are irrelevant.
>
You should talk, comrade Stalin. PLONK
Jane_Galt
> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in
> news:Xns9E52DBD2E1ECJa...@216.196.97.142:
>
>> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>
>>> Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>>
>> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a
>> mafia.
>>
>>> Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to
>>> communal good is intolerable
>>
>> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>>
> The entire idea of community is incompatible with her philosphy of the
> individual first and foremost.
Liar. Forced community.
> Objectivism boils down to "each man for
> himself."
No, liar, voluntary community and ownership of one's own life.
> It doesn't matter if she "says" something if that something is
> logically inconsistent with the rest of her ideology.
Anatomy of a Smear
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2541446/posts
Attack, marginalize, mock. - Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"
Ignoring, deflecting, redirecting...
Jane_Galt
So you theorize that because we live in society, the government owns our
lives.
"Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of
their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our
natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a
natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this
is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the
natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is
all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to
be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit
to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and
enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions; and ****the idea is
quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
**** " - Thomas Jefferson
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Fighter.
Biz isn't capable of theorization - he's got split personalities:
See, he was driven from this NG before, but tried to return under a
different name. He was called on it in the thread that link provides
and did not deny it at the time.
Oh, he tries to deny it now to avoid scorn and ridicule but it's far
to late for that.
RIGHT, CHRISTINA?!?
:D
bmo...@nyx.net
> "bmo...@nyx.net" <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, "Jane_Galt" <Jane__G...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
> >> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> >> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>
> >> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a mafia.
>
> > Why can't it be somewhere in between?
>
> >> > Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to communal
> >> > good is intolerable
>
> >> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>
> > Unless one lives on a desert island, it is not possible to completely
> > live apart from society. You have no choice in the matter. Glib
> > insults of "commie" etc. don't change the reality.
>
> So you theorize that because we live in society, the government owns our
> lives.
You are taking my correct statements "It is not possible to completely
live apart from society. You have no choice in the matter" and
incorrectly surmising that I am saying that this implies that "the
government owns our lives". There is no logic that I know of that
could even weakly get from point A to point B here.
> "Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of
> their power: that their true office is to declare and enforce only our
> natural rights and duties and to take none of them from us. No man has a
> natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this
> is all from which the laws ought to restrain him; every man is under the
> natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society, and this is
> all the laws should enforce on him; and, no man having a natural right to
> be the judge between himself and another, it is his natural duty to submit
> to the umpirage of an impartial third. When the laws have declared and
> enforced all this, they have fulfilled their functions; and ****the idea is
> quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural right.
> **** " - Thomas Jefferson
>
> --
> - Jane Galt
>
> "Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus
> 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since
> material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and
> are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result
> of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to
> turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to
> 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to
> treat human beings as chattel." -- Ayn Rand- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
RickyBobby
"ray" wrote in message news:ieoth...@news5.newsguy.com...
--
Now you are talking about something I know something about.
I spent twenty years in the eighteen wheeler industry and now I am in the
cab industry in Las Vegas.
Which state has the highest unemployment rate? Nevada
Which state has the highest foreclosure rate? Nevada
How many cab companies are there in Las Vegas? Seven
And how many of them are hiring cab drivers today? Seven
Anybody who says there are no jobs should go to a trucking company or a cab
company and ask them if they are hiring? They all are.
If somebody has a marketing degree and no experience I would not know what
to tell them.
I do know a kid who took two majors in college and knew something about
nuclear pharmacy and her first job the day she got out of college started at
80K. If she had studied web design she would probably still be unemployed.
Working stiffs can go to Yellow the trucking company or Yellow the cab
company and get a job. Do not tell me they cannot because I know better.
College degree people may have a harder time but I have never picked up a
newspaper than did not have help wanted ads.
bmo...@nyx.net
Talk about internet weirdness. O'Neill is a mentally ill person who
makes statements about other posters that have no connection to what
is being said. It's not nice to tease the mentally ill, but his
baiting style makes him hard to resist. And trivial to refute in any
matter of substance.
O'Neil's Faggy Prostate - Fighter.
>
> - Show quoted text -
I PW0N J000000000U!!!
:D
Dewey
news:Xns9E54D37C71C51J...@216.196.97.142:
> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
>> "Jane_Galt" <Jane_...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote in
>> news:Xns9E52DBD2E1ECJa...@216.196.97.142:
>>
>>> Dewey <dewey3...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>>
>>>> Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of
>>>> community.
>>>
>>> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a
>>> mafia.
>>>
>>>> Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to
>>>> communal good is intolerable
>>>
>>> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>>>
>> The entire idea of community is incompatible with her philosphy of
>> the individual first and foremost.
>
> Liar. Forced community.
>
You haven't got a clue, have you?
>> Objectivism boils down to "each man for
>> himself."
>
>
> No, liar, voluntary community and ownership of one's own life.
>
There is no such thing as "voluntary community." I've already explained
why.
>> It doesn't matter if she "says" something if that something is
>> logically inconsistent with the rest of her ideology.
>
> Anatomy of a Smear
Pointing out a logical inconsistency is a "smear"? But your name-calling
is enlightened debate, no doubt.
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2541446/posts
>
I couldn't care less what freepers have to say.
> Attack, marginalize, mock. - Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals"
> Ignoring, deflecting, redirecting...
>
You have not addressed a single point. You've called names and ignored,
deflected and redirected. You are either a complete blithering idiot or
you foolishly and incorrectly think everyone else is. You are a complete
waste of time.
Dewey
news:Xns9E54D93D2531AJ...@216.196.97.142:
> "bmo...@nyx.net" <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote :
>
>> On Dec 18, 8:36�pm, "Jane_Galt" <Jane__G...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>>> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> �wrote :
>>>
>>> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of
>>> > community.
>>>
>>> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a
>>> mafia.
>>
>> Why can't it be somewhere in between?
>>
>>> > Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to
>>> > communal good is intolerable
>>>
>>> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>>
>> Unless one lives on a desert island, it is not possible to completely
>> live apart from society. You have no choice in the matter. Glib
>> insults of "commie" etc. don't change the reality.
>
> So you theorize that because we live in society, the government owns
> our lives.
>
Strawman. With every post, you become more and more of a usenet
stereotype.
Dewey
news:6d0e1323-2771-4b4c...@p7g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
All she can do is "ignore, deflect and redirect."
bmo...@nyx.net
> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> wrote :
>
> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>
> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a mafia.
>
> > good is intolerable
>
> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
A man or woman is not an island. If that's the way you want this world
you to be, are free to try to change it, collectively with others.
Most of us prefer a collective.
bmo...@nyx.net
The Usenet stereotypes here on the Red Sox NG do all that, plus repeat
the same distorted BS again and again.
Jane_Galt
> On Dec 18, 8:36�pm, "Jane_Galt" <Jane__G...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> �wrote :
>>
>> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of community.
>>
>> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a mafia.
>>
>> > Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to communal
>> > good is intolerable
>>
>> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>
> A man or woman is not an island. If that's the way you want this world
> you to be, are free to try to change it, collectively with others.
> Most of us prefer a collective.
So do I, but voluntary ones.
Dewey
news:Xns9E59165AB827Ja...@216.196.97.142:
> "bmo...@nyx.net" <bmo...@nyx.net> wrote :
>
>> On Dec 18, 8:36 pm, "Jane_Galt" <Jane__G...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote:
>>> Dewey <dewey3kNOS...@gmail.com> wrote :
>>>
>>> > Ayn Rand's philosophy necessarily negates the existence of
>>> > community.
>>>
>>> Not true, it only says it should be voluntary, instead of like a
>>> mafia.
>>>
>>> > Objectivism is all about the individual. The slightest nod to
>>> > communal good is intolerable
>>>
>>> Again, not true. Voluntary, not forced.
>>
>> A man or woman is not an island. If that's the way you want this
>> world you to be, are free to try to change it, collectively with
>> others. Most of us prefer a collective.
>
> So do I, but voluntary ones.
>
>
You keep saying this like it means something. It doesn't. Do you really
not get that? Every relationship requires at least two people to agree
on a common framework. Your relationship with the broader society
necessarily requires you to accomodate the desires of many, many other
people. There is simply no way around that. Your only other option is to
move to a cabin in the woods, hunt your own food, burn wood to heat your
home - although even there you are polluting the shared airspace so you
make yourself subject to society's regulations. You could buy an island
and live in total isolation. This is the reality, yours is the fantasy.
I don't expect an actual response so if all you've got is name calling,
don't waste your time.
bmo...@nyx.net
> "Jane_Galt" <Jane__G...@GaltsGulch.xyy> wrote innews:Xns9E59165AB827Ja...@216.196.97.142:
Agreed. From the moment one is born one is in a "forced" collective
called family. It's not as though there is an evil conspiracy out
there forcing a person into a community - it's just the way it is.