Re: SHRINKING AARP IS LOSING PLENTY OF SENIORS

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:18:26 -0600, Ray <ask...@notthere-there.net>
wrote:

>I cancelled my AARP a couple years ago when they supported Obama.

I vowed they would never get a penny from me over 10 years ago when
they supported gun control. Gun control is the litmus test for
"liberal," which I endeavor to never support for anything, anywhere.

[Bert]

In news:6uouf8pt0bku9ofrv...@4ax.com Ray

<ask...@notthere-there.net> wrote:

> I cancelled my AARP a couple years ago when they supported Obama.

Underneath it all, AARP is just a front for insurance companies.

They lobbied heavily for "ObamaCare" on behalf of their patrons.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[JAB]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:18:26 -0600, Ray <ask...@notthere-there.net>
wrote:

>THIS LADY NOT ONLY HAS A GRASP OF 'THE SITUATION' BUT AN INCREDIBLE
>COMMAND OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE!
>
>Dear Mr. Rand,



Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn....

[Dave K]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:18:26 -0600, Ray <ask...@notthere-there.net>
wrote:

>I cancelled my AARP a couple years ago when they supported Obama.
>

<snip>

Thanks Ray! Because you are against it, I sent my dues in for a
couple more years of membership.

To all those that don't want the government to control their health
care, and would rather a private insurance company do it....
--

"You can't fix stupid!"
-Ron White

[TomAl...@youcan'tgettherefromhere.com]

On 23-Jan-2013, Bert <be...@iphouse.com> wrote:

> Underneath it all, AARP is just a front for insurance companies.

Besides all the other rackets out there they push, car insurance, monitoring
etc. At best they are a brockerage company pretending to look out for old
folks.

[Bert]

In news:3lg3g8910bk5mbgpv...@4ax.com Dave K

<dav...@att.net> wrote:

> Thanks Ray! Because you are against it, I sent my dues in for a
> couple more years of membership.

Such a week mind that you're so easily manipulated?

I'm against the American NAZI party.

You'll be signing up right away, right? Or would you just be extending
your existing membership?

[Dave K]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 18:00:21 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>In news:3lg3g8910bk5mbgpv...@4ax.com Dave K
><dav...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Ray! Because you are against it, I sent my dues in for a
>> couple more years of membership.
>
>Such a week mind that you're so easily manipulated?
>
>I'm against the American NAZI party.

No Bert. You, I had some level of respect for. I might not always
agree with you, but I do not think I have put you down because we
don't agree.

Ray is just a moron.

>
>You'll be signing up right away, right? Or would you just be extending
>your existing membership?

That will never happen.
--

Cheers! :)

[Bert]

In news:r598g8d8mof4a1u9s...@4ax.com Dave K

<dav...@att.net> wrote:

> No Bert. You, I had some level of respect for. I might not always
> agree with you, but I do not think I have put you down because we
> don't agree.

Please explain your earlier erruption:

"Thanks Ray! Because you are against it, I sent my dues in for a
couple more years of membership."

I clearly see the word "because" as your reason for sending even more
money to AARP so that they might lobby the government against your and
my interests.

[Dave K]

On Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:50:33 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>In news:r598g8d8mof4a1u9s...@4ax.com Dave K
><dav...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> No Bert. You, I had some level of respect for. I might not always
>> agree with you, but I do not think I have put you down because we
>> don't agree.
>
>Please explain your earlier erruption:

Well, for starters, it was not an eruption.

>
>"Thanks Ray! Because you are against it, I sent my dues in for a
>couple more years of membership."
>
>I clearly see the word "because" as your reason for sending even more
>money to AARP so that they might lobby the government against your and
>my interests.

Perhaps you cannot understand. I do not consider AARP lobbies
against my interests. Of course, from the Republican, or
Connedservative, point of view, it is against their rich backers
interests.

Just think; a country where people worked together for the good of
all, instead of all of us working for the interests of the few...

Nah, that won't happen as long as some people truly believe that the
wealthiest these days are the makers, and not the takers.

Despite boom years for the top earners in this country, unemployment
is low, and more people are filing bankruptcy. Why have they not
created the jobs. Fact is, they don't as long as investment pays
better, and the taxes are lower for them.

I understand it is counterintuitive, but when taxes are higher, the
middle class seems to grow, and more people have jobs and spend more
money. By not reinvesting money in this country, the wealthiest are
killing the goose that laid the golden egg, if only to get a bit more
faster.

Of course, there are those that deny the real facts. Look it up; I
have. The facts are eye openers.
--

Cheers! :)

[Dave K]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 02:34:25 -0500, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:

>Dave considers anything anti-American to be in his interest.

Coward!

[Bert]

In news:g4ogg8leb7ameccsm...@4ax.com Dave K

<dav...@att.net> wrote:

> I do not consider AARP lobbies against my interests.

Then you must be a moocher.

[Dave K]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:49:46 +0000 (UTC), Bert <be...@iphouse.com>
wrote:

>In news:g4ogg8leb7ameccsm...@4ax.com Dave K
><dav...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> I do not consider AARP lobbies against my interests.
>
>Then you must be a moocher.

And you must be wrong.
--

Cheers! :)