OT:Hannity and Wm. Ayers
Jenn
link Ayers with Obama.
Incredible desperation. Incredible stupidity.
Politics as usual...
Sorry for the off topic...
ScottW
> lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> link Ayers with Obama.
Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanapr20,1,2975893.column
"He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with
him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one
of his campaigns."
Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level respected
community activist with his admitted past more troubling than Obama's
apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers background to
launch his political career.
Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
But I do think they should be public knowledge.
If Hannity has one valid point it's that the MSM has not done their
job
of thouroughly vetting Obama.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233.story
Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
democratic hopes
for a victory this fall IMO.
ScottW
Clyde Slick
He is linked to Obama, but not
significantly, and not too recently, as far
as the worswt of it, it was the fundraiser many years ago.
Bernadine dohrn is even more reprehensible than Mr. Ayers.
The linkage to wright is much more significant and much more troubling.
Jenn
<bd9b2c7b-ab0c-42e4...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanapr20,1,29758
> 93.column
>
> "He's appeared on panels with Ayers,
Oh my God!
I've been on a panel with a convicted murderer. Guess I'm sunk.
> served on a foundation board with
> him
Along with half of the bank presidents in Chicago.
> and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
> fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
They are solid citizens now with lots of good works to their credit.
> Ayers even gave money to one
> of his campaigns."
OMG!
>
> Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level respected
> community activist with his admitted past more troubling
Why? He's doing good things.
> than Obama's
> apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers background to
> launch his political career.
>
> Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
> But I do think they should be public knowledge.
And they are.
>
> If Hannity has one valid point it's that the MSM has not done their
> job
> of thouroughly vetting Obama.
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233.story
>
> Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> democratic hopes
> for a victory this fall IMO.
Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
Jenn
<2a229a73-e386-4870...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you troubled by McCain's links to Hagy?
Clyde Slick
> In article
> <2a229a73-e386-4870-8952-b67a79ed7...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11 Mai, 15:08, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > > Incredible desperation. Incredible stupidity.
>
> > > Politics as usual...
>
> > > Sorry for the off topic...
>
> > He is linked to Obama, but not
> > significantly, and not too recently, as far
> > as the worswt of it, it was the fundraiser many years ago.
> > Bernadine dohrn is even more reprehensible than Mr. Ayers.
>
> > The linkage to wright is much more significant and much more troubling.
>
Not nearly as much.
He is not his pastor.
He didn't perform his marraige ceremony.
He hasn't been a close friend for twenty years.'
He didn't feign ignorance of the offence as did Obama.
Obama's ignorance of Wright's true character spans twenty years of
close personal involvement.
Clyde Slick
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
>
> > Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> > democratic hopes
> > for a victory this fall IMO.
>
> Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
Duh, 'most' of the criminals pardoned by Presidents are, well, they
are, uh, criminals.
The valid questions on pardons might be whether the,
'uh, criminal is repentant, and whether there was any kickback or
political favors in'regard to the pardon.
Jenn
<a2da3e77-b644-4dca...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And so this is relevant to this election how?
Jenn
<654ff15c-0f56-4a49...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 16:30, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2a229a73-e386-4870-8952-b67a79ed7...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 11 Mai, 15:08, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > > > link Ayers with Obama.
> >
> > > > Incredible desperation. Incredible stupidity.
> >
> > > > Politics as usual...
> >
> > > > Sorry for the off topic...
> >
> > > He is linked to Obama, but not
> > > significantly, and not too recently, as far
> > > as the worswt of it, it was the fundraiser many years ago.
> > > Bernadine dohrn is even more reprehensible than Mr. Ayers.
> >
> > > The linkage to wright is much more significant and much more troubling.
> >
> > Are you troubled by McCain's links to Hagy?-
>
> Not nearly as much.
> He is not his pastor.
No, but he did ASK for Hagy's endorcement.
> He didn't perform his marraige ceremony.
> He hasn't been a close friend for twenty years.'
> He didn't feign ignorance of the offence as did Obama.
> Obama's ignorance of Wright's true character spans twenty years of
> close personal involvement.
When did Wright start making his odd comments?
Clyde Slick
Quite a while ago. Some of Wrights supporters, in defending him,
claimed that the tapes were old. True enough, you can see how he aged.
Though they are villifying Wright with old comments, it also means
that Obama has been around this stuff or a long time.
As far as recent Wright stuff, you can look at his
rants firm the past two weeks.
MiNe 109
<654ff15c-0f56-4a49...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All he did was solicit his endorsement. Don't miss the Rolling Stone
article about Hagee's church, "Jesus Made Me Puke":
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke
Stephen
Jenn
<30dd1aca-a84e-4520...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't know how much Obama has been exposed to that stuff, and no one
else seems to know either. The big point is that there is absolutely no
linkage to Obama holding these thoughts. So far, the right wing's main
"weapon" against Obama seems to be things his PASTOR has said (does
McCain have a pastor, BTW?) and that fact that he knows Ayers.
Clyde Slick
Clyde Slick
ITs pretty much the published philosophical
underpinings of the church. The replacement is more of
the same. Black liberation theology
is Marxism cloaked with Jesus.
Its ok, if its something he grew out of after he matured.
but he never broke the apron strings.
This will play large in middle America.
relationship woith one's pastor
is a big thing.
The big point is that there is absolutely no
> linkage to Obama holding these thoughts. So far, the right wing's main
> "weapon" against Obama seems to be things his PASTOR has said (does
> McCain have a pastor, BTW?) and that fact that he knows Ayers.- Ascunde citatul -
If one is disgusted by the behavior and rantings of one's pastor, why
does one stay with him?
This just brings up quetions, doubts, misgivings, and second thoughts.
Personally, I still like the guy (Obama, not Wright).
Clyde Slick
> In article
> <654ff15c-0f56-4a49-92f1-6e36050fc...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On 11 Mai, 16:30, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > Are you troubled by McCain's links to Hagy?-
>
> > Not nearly as much.
> > He is not his pastor.
> > He didn't perform his marraige ceremony.
> > He hasn't been a close friend for twenty years.'
> > He didn't feign ignorance of the offence as did Obama.
> > Obama's ignorance of Wright's true character spans twenty years of
> > close personal involvement.
>
> All he did was solicit his endorsement.
Are you talking about McCain/Hagy
or Obama/Wright.
If the latter, you are very wrong.
MiNe 109
<5eed29f6-bc1e-4b1b...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hagee. How'd you like the article?
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Are you truly concerned that Obama "hates America" or any of the other
tripe?
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > Obama's ignorance of Wright's true character spans twenty years of
> > close personal involvement.
>
> Are you truly concerned that Obama "hates America" or any of the other
> tripe?
Obama has just a few too many melanin cells for Sacky to accept him.
Clyde Slick
<artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you truly concerned that Obama "hates America" or any of the other
> tripe?-
Not that he hates America, just that he hates those frustrated
Americans
that cling to guns and religion. "At least they don't cling
to 'his' I Hate America Hypocritical Class Warfare religion.
Clyde Slick
Go tell that to all the Hillary supporters.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On 11 Mai, 21:10, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Are you truly concerned that Obama "hates America" or any of the other
> > tripe?-
>
> Not that he hates America, just that he hates those frustrated
> Americans
> that cling to guns and religion.
Is that what you got out of that?
> "At least they don't cling
> to 'his' I Hate America Hypocritical Class Warfare religion.
I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
McCain reminds me of a sour used prune.
Clyde Slick
<artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
> time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
>
Hope I can afford the high taxes.
> McCain reminds me of a sour used prune.
I can picture that.
ScottW
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
> > 93.column
>
> > "He's appeared on panels with Ayers,
>
> Oh my God!
>
> I've been on a panel with a convicted murderer. Guess I'm sunk.
>
> > served on a foundation board with
> > him
>
> Along with half of the bank presidents in Chicago.
>
> > and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
> > fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
>
> They are solid citizens now with lots of good works to their credit.
Solid flag stomping citizens whose only regret is they didn't kill
more
people.
>
> > Ayers even gave money to one
> > of his campaigns."
>
> OMG!
>
>
>
> > Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level respected
> > community activist with his admitted past more troubling
>
> Why? He's doing good things.
Like what? He's a scum sucking slimeball who was willing to put
his personal beliefs ahead of innocent peoples lives.
How do you forgive that?
He has no regrets. People like him remain dangerous.
Who knows what will inspire him to kill again.
>
> > than Obama's
> > apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers background to
> > launch his political career.
>
> > Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
> > But I do think they should be public knowledge.
>
> And they are.
Thanks in large part to Hannity.
>
>
>
> > If Hannity has one valid point it's that the MSM has not done their
> > job
> > of thouroughly vetting Obama.
>
> >http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233.s...
>
> > Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> > democratic hopes
> > for a victory this fall IMO.
>
> Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
Just another tick off the approval rating.
Bush isn't running for president, Obama is.
There's a reason Clinton waited till his presidency was
nearly over to go on his pardon spree.
It wasn't all about the library funding.
ScottW
ScottW
Exactly. How do Bush's action reflect on any of the current
candidates?
ScottW
ScottW
We need to bring forth the mind reader.
> So far, the right wing's main
> "weapon" against Obama seems to be things his PASTOR has said (does
> McCain have a pastor, BTW?) and that fact that he knows Ayers.
It would be nice if Obama were really forthcoming on what he
believes.
All I hear are meaningless plattitudes.
He says his policies are documented on his web site. If that's
it...the guy couldn't get a small business loan as his plan would be
considered to vague.
ScottW
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Please compare and contrast the McCain "plan".
TIA!
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > And so this is relevant to this election how?
>
> Exactly. How do Bush's action reflect on any of the current
> candidates?
Because McCain embraces most of them?
MiNe 109
<de815b9d-7f78-4570...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
> > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
> >
>
> Hope I can afford the high taxes.
If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
Stephen
Jenn
<f14399f4-a3db-469d...@l17g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
He has been.
> All I hear are meaningless plattitudes.
> He says his policies are documented on his web site. If that's
> it...the guy couldn't get a small business loan as his plan would be
> considered to vague.
He's "at least" as specific as any other candidate at this stage of the
game.
Jenn
<f20e308b-468b-42b8...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
In the same way that President Clinton's actions do.
Jenn
<9d14cede-034c-4896...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree with much of what you've said on this, but I believe that people
do change. At any rate, Obama just KNOWS the guy, as do many others.
The implication by Hannity is that Obama shares his past beliefs, which
is ridiculous.
>
> Just another tick off the approval rating.
> Bush isn't running for president, Obama is.
> There's a reason Clinton waited till his presidency was
> nearly over to go on his pardon spree.
Which is the same reason that every President seems to do that.
ScottW
You ignore that Hillary claims experience gained in his
administration
and does not state that Bill won't have a role in hers if elected.
So the policies and actions of that administration do reflect on
Hillary
ScottW
ScottW
Do you launch your political campaigns in the living rooms of
people you just "know"?
That doesn't pass the smell test any better than Obamas claims
he didn't know what the Rev. Wright was saying.
> as do many others.
> The implication by Hannity is that Obama shares his past beliefs, which
> is ridiculous.
For one, they are not at all past with Ayers. He hasn't changed his
beliefs.
We don't really know what Obama's beliefs are as he has lost a bit of
credibility
with his comments that aren't completely factual.
>
>
>
> > Just another tick off the approval rating.
> > Bush isn't running for president, Obama is.
> > There's a reason Clinton waited till his presidency was
> > nearly over to go on his pardon spree.
>
> Which is the same reason that every President seems to do that.
Compare Clintons pardon list to every other president
and then make this ridiculous equivalence argument.
FWIW, we don't yet know what Bush will do on his exit.
ScottW
George M. Middius
Tremors surge through the vast right-wing idiocracy.
> You ignore that Hillary claims experience
The main reason I'm disappointed that Hillary didn't win the nomination is
because the loony right fears her so much. The scenario of President
Hillary would have incited such panic that Kansas would try to override
the Thirteenth Amendment.
ScottW
He believes we need a change. Wow, that's really forthcoming.
>
> > All I hear are meaningless plattitudes.
> > He says his policies are documented on his web site. If that's
> > it...the guy couldn't get a small business loan as his plan would be
> > considered to vague.
>
> He's "at least" as specific as any other candidate at this stage of the
> game.
No, he's absolutely the least specific and he specifically tells his
callers not to
get into policy details when they solicit votes. Refer them to the
web site where there is enough to satisfy any political geek is what
the trainees were told.
Well I looked. It isn't at all illuminating.
I think this lack of specifity as a political tactic should be
rejected by voters on principle. We need leaders who will their
positions and principles up for a vote.
Not their good looks and vague speeches.
ScottW
ScottW
> Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
> > > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
>
> > Hope I can afford the high taxes.
>
> If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
You won't starve but the opportunity to maybe establish a
college fund or loadup for retirement or buy your kids a house
or a trust fund for grandkids etc is severely diminished.
You work hard, get a great job in a young company that enjoys
success and provides opportunity to share that success via options
and what do you suppose the gov't will do?
Even under Bush's cuts your gonna pay in the low 40%s.
Under Obama, you will be looking at 50%.
Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
So now your kids and grandkids
are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
demand equality for all. All equally poor.
That's just fucking great.
ScottW
MiNe 109
<443b4bca-caa3-44b2...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 6:57 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <de815b9d-7f78-4570-99d0-25ea88325...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
> > > > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
> >
> > > Hope I can afford the high taxes.
> >
> > If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
>
> You won't starve but the opportunity to maybe establish a
> college fund or loadup for retirement or buy your kids a house
> or a trust fund for grandkids etc is severely diminished.
If we're talking about the recent discussion of raising the capital
gains tax, 'severely' isn't a good description.
> You work hard, get a great job in a young company that enjoys
> success and provides opportunity to share that success via options
> and what do you suppose the gov't will do?
> Even under Bush's cuts your gonna pay in the low 40%s.
> Under Obama, you will be looking at 50%.
You could restructure your compensation.
> Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
> your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
> So now your kids and grandkids
> are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
> demand equality for all. All equally poor.
Too bad they didn't take advantage of the superior education and social
contacts available to them.
> That's just fucking great.
You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
Stephen
ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 6:57 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <de815b9d-7f78-4570-99d0-25ea88325...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the first
> > > > > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
>
> > > > Hope I can afford the high taxes.
>
> > > If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
>
> > You won't starve but the opportunity to maybe establish a
> > college fund or loadup for retirement or buy your kids a house
> > or a trust fund for grandkids etc is severely diminished.
>
> If we're talking about the recent discussion of raising the capital
> gains tax, 'severely' isn't a good description.
Doubling the tax isn't severe?
>
> > You work hard, get a great job in a young company that enjoys
> > success and provides opportunity to share that success via options
> > and what do you suppose the gov't will do?
> > Even under Bush's cuts your gonna pay in the low 40%s.
> > Under Obama, you will be looking at 50%.
>
> You could restructure your compensation.
No you can't. It's all ordinary income and you can't even income
average
anymore. You get F'd. All this BS about rich people able
to hide their money is a bunch of crap when it comes to working
people getting a bit of the benefit of their corp success via
Non-incentive options or bonus's.
>
> > Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
> > your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
>
> I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
Mostly because you're impotence has left you
without a legacy.
>
> > So now your kids and grandkids
> > are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
> > demand equality for all. All equally poor.
>
> Too bad they didn't take advantage of the superior education and social
> contacts available to them.
Lol...you'll spew the most ridiculous crap at times.
Lets make our kids lives depend on "social contacts".
What a load of elitist crap.
Even Obama wouldn't touch that....hell, even Wright wouldn't
touch that.
>
> > That's just fucking great.
>
> You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
Because I earned it and I choose to give it to them.
I'll be damned if I let you take it away from them because
your lazy ass won't do the same for you and yours.
ScottW
MiNe 109
<94674314-7131-4bff...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <443b4bca-caa3-44b2-b02d-8103d9089...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 12, 6:57 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <de815b9d-7f78-4570-99d0-25ea88325...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for the
> > > > > > first
> > > > > > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs it.
> >
> > > > > Hope I can afford the high taxes.
> >
> > > > If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
> >
> > > You won't starve but the opportunity to maybe establish a
> > > college fund or loadup for retirement or buy your kids a house
> > > or a trust fund for grandkids etc is severely diminished.
> >
> > If we're talking about the recent discussion of raising the capital
> > gains tax, 'severely' isn't a good description.
>
> Doubling the tax isn't severe?
Raising capital gains to the same level as earned income isn't.
> > > You work hard, get a great job in a young company that enjoys
> > > success and provides opportunity to share that success via options
> > > and what do you suppose the gov't will do?
> > > Even under Bush's cuts your gonna pay in the low 40%s.
> > > Under Obama, you will be looking at 50%.
> >
> > You could restructure your compensation.
>
> No you can't. It's all ordinary income and you can't even income
> average
> anymore. You get F'd. All this BS about rich people able
> to hide their money is a bunch of crap when it comes to working
> people getting a bit of the benefit of their corp success via
> Non-incentive options or bonus's.
Sorry. I don't make enough money to know what you're talking about.
> > > Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
> > > your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
> >
> > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> without a legacy.
Is that a personal comment? I thought you were against those.
> > > So now your kids and grandkids
> > > are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
> > > demand equality for all. All equally poor.
> >
> > Too bad they didn't take advantage of the superior education and social
> > contacts available to them.
>
> Lol...you'll spew the most ridiculous crap at times.
> Lets make our kids lives depend on "social contacts".
> What a load of elitist crap.
> Even Obama wouldn't touch that....hell, even Wright wouldn't
> touch that.
I see you play both sides of the egalitarian fence, although you are a
better judge of the social contacts you've been able to accumulate.
> > > That's just fucking great.
> >
> > You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
>
> Because I earned it and I choose to give it to them.
> I'll be damned if I let you take it away from them because
> your lazy ass won't do the same for you and yours.
You still have that right. You're just complaining about contributing to
the common good as well.
Stephen
ScottW
So your comments above are admittedly made in ignorance.
Is that a habit or yours?
>
> > > > Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
> > > > your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
>
> > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > without a legacy.
>
> Is that a personal comment? I thought you were against those.
It's a fact. Lots of people without family are very short sighted
and more willing to take from others because they have no
personal responsibility other than themselves.
>
> > > > So now your kids and grandkids
> > > > are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
> > > > demand equality for all. All equally poor.
>
> > > Too bad they didn't take advantage of the superior education and social
> > > contacts available to them.
>
> > Lol...you'll spew the most ridiculous crap at times.
> > Lets make our kids lives depend on "social contacts".
> > What a load of elitist crap.
> > Even Obama wouldn't touch that....hell, even Wright wouldn't
> > touch that.
>
> I see you play both sides of the egalitarian fence, although you are a
> better judge of the social contacts you've been able to accumulate.
I have no social contacts that I think will benefit my children
so you remain, full of BS.
>
> > > > That's just fucking great.
>
> > > You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
>
> > Because I earned it and I choose to give it to them.
> > I'll be damned if I let you take it away from them because
> > your lazy ass won't do the same for you and yours.
>
> You still have that right. You're just complaining about contributing to
> the common good as well.
It's commonly good for people to allow them to enjoy the
fruits of their labors.
ScottW
George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> > > > Non-incentive options or bonus's.
> > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
> > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > without a legacy.
>
> Is that a personal comment? I thought you were against those.
That's correct, but only up to a point. Scottie is against comment's that
R phrased in gud English. If a comment has error's like missing
apostrophe's or an apostrophe thats missing, hes for them.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> I think this lack of specifity as a political tactic should be
> rejected by voters on principle. We need leaders who will their
> positions and principles up for a vote.
> Not their good looks and vague speeches.
Please compare and contrast the McCain "plan".
TIA!
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > We need leaders who will their
> > positions and principles up for a vote.
> Please compare and contrast the McCain "plan".
Last I heard, McCain says we have to stay in Iraq "for as long as it
takes". That's depressing, if not hopeless.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On May 12, 10:04 am, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
>
> > I agree with much of what you've said on this, but I believe that people
> > do change. At any rate, Obama just KNOWS the guy,
>
> Do you launch your political campaigns in the living rooms of
> people you just "know"?
Yes. Here's how it works, 2pid. There's somebody running for an
office. You like what that candidate says. You decide you want to
help. You host a coffee or dinner for that candidate and invite your
neighbors. The candidate shows up and talks for a little while and
solicits funds from the attendees.
You don't believe me? Call your local party and offer to host one for
a candidate.
What you're implying is that every person who hosts every coffee is
vetted. That's not the case. Even you could do it and it might be
months before your candidate realized that he'd been to a coffee
hosted by a rearded person. Imagine what Hannity would say about that!
> That doesn't pass the smell test any better than Obamas claims
> he didn't know what the Rev. Wright was saying.
It doesn't pass your smell test because you are not very bright and
obviously do not understand how politics works at the local level.
Here is the same thing at a national level:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/18425869.html
Imagine if it was discovered this developer was flipping mortgages
later.
Presumably bushie also has access to vetting resources not available
to most candidates. And Ayers is not a wanted criminal, so who cares?
> > as do many others.
> > The implication by Hannity is that Obama shares his past beliefs, which
> > is ridiculous.
>
> For one, they are not at all past with Ayers. He hasn't changed his
> beliefs.
Which beliefs? The misquoted ones?
"Ayers has maintained that the two statements were not intended to
imply a wish they had set more bombs.[6][7] The interviewer also
quoted some of Ayers' own criticism of Weatherman in the foreword to
the memoir, whereby Ayers reacts to having watched Emile de Antonio's
1976 documentary film about Weatherman, Underground: "[Ayers] was
'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty
that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.'
"[3]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Ayers
> We don't really know what Obama's beliefs are as he has lost a bit of
> credibility
> with his comments that aren't completely factual.
Take this sentence to someone who speaks English as a primary language
and ask them to help you with it. Ask them not to spank you.
> > > Just another tick off the approval rating.
> > > Bush isn't running for president, Obama is.
> > > There's a reason Clinton waited till his presidency was
> > > nearly over to go on his pardon spree.
>
> > Which is the same reason that every President seems to do that.
>
> Compare Clintons pardon list to every other president
> and then make this ridiculous equivalence argument.
Yes, Jimmy Hoffa, Iran-Contra, and so on, are all FAR better choices
than Marc Rich. ;-)
> FWIW, we don't yet know what Bush will do on his exit.
I'm sure there are a lot of people being Born Again right now in
federal prisons everywhere.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
Isn't he also for reducing more taxes as well?
And 2pid was worried about handing a legacy to his children. That
concern must be as shallow and one-dimensional as 2pid is.
Jenn
> On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> without a legacy.
Wow...
Jenn
<b9a2aa79-aa3d-4fae...@q1g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On what issue is McCain more specific than Obama? Please site examples.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> It's commonly good for people to allow them to enjoy the
> fruits of their labors.
I believe I called 2pid on his "I, Me, Mine" philosophy long ago.
In 2pid's view, "society" is a four-letter word.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > without a legacy.
>
> Wow...
Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
ScottW
> In article
> <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > without a legacy.
>
> Wow...
Maybe you and Stephen should hook up.
ScottW
Jenn
<f4dc440b-d9b3-4ce4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Why?
Jenn
<d1d111bd-ee2a-432e...@1g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
GHW Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_H._W._Bush
Clinton:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Bill_Clinton
GW Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_George_W._Bush
Jenn
<60f32f47-0b0a-4c84...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
So her husband's pardons figure into this...how?
> and does not state that Bill won't have a role in hers if elected.
> So the policies and actions of that administration do reflect on
> Hillary
>
> ScottW
lol
George M. Middius
Jenn said:
> > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > without a legacy.
> > >
> > > Wow...
> >
> > Maybe you and Stephen should hook up.
> Why?
Doesn't your question boil down to a request for Scottie to make sense?
Tsk, tsk...
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> lol
I'm sorry, Jenn, but laughing will not erase the logical slaughter
that 2pid has ambushed you with.
MiNe 109
<f16274fe-6562-4843...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Yes, I'm personally ignorant of rich people entitlement although I can
detect it in others
> > > > > Then you take the proceeds and invest....and bammo,
> > > > > your capital gains earnings are taxed at 30%.
> >
> > > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
> >
> > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > without a legacy.
> >
> > Is that a personal comment? I thought you were against those.
>
> It's a fact.
No, you said I'm without legacy because of impotence. That would be an
example of the insult and mockery you so decry in others.
> Lots of people without family are very short sighted
> and more willing to take from others because they have no
> personal responsibility other than themselves.
Some enter teaching professions in order to give to others.
> > > > > So now your kids and grandkids
> > > > > are just put into the pack of all the other poor people who
> > > > > demand equality for all. All equally poor.
> >
> > > > Too bad they didn't take advantage of the superior education and social
> > > > contacts available to them.
> >
> > > Lol...you'll spew the most ridiculous crap at times.
> > > Lets make our kids lives depend on "social contacts".
> > > What a load of elitist crap.
> > > Even Obama wouldn't touch that....hell, even Wright wouldn't
> > > touch that.
> >
> > I see you play both sides of the egalitarian fence, although you are a
> > better judge of the social contacts you've been able to accumulate.
>
> I have no social contacts that I think will benefit my children
> so you remain, full of BS.
Nonsense. You've just demonstrated the truth of my statement that you
know what contacts you have available.
You're still playing both sides of that fence.
> > > > > That's just fucking great.
> >
> > > > You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
> >
> > > Because I earned it and I choose to give it to them.
> > > I'll be damned if I let you take it away from them because
> > > your lazy ass won't do the same for you and yours.
> >
> > You still have that right. You're just complaining about contributing to
> > the common good as well.
>
> It's commonly good for people to allow them to enjoy the
> fruits of their labors.
That excludes capital gains.
Stephen
MiNe 109
How does that go: we have stay until they stop trying to kill us for
staying?
Stephen
MiNe 109
<jennconductsREMOVETHIS...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.n
et>,
Jenn <jennconduct...@mac.com> wrote:
Now that dw's left the group, he has to lash out at someone else who
isn't burdened with a family and a nine-to-five. He's the Angry White
Male personified.
Stephen
Jenn
<smcelroy2-13610...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu>,
MiNe 109 <smce...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
I have a family, and my job is more like 8a-10p ;-)
> He's the Angry White
> Male personified.
I forget; who is dw?
MiNe 109
MiNe 109
<f4dc440b-d9b3-4ce4...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When did you become such a panty-sniffer?
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> > et>,
> > Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > without a legacy.
>
> > > Wow...
>
> > Now that dw's left the group, he has to lash out at someone else who
> > isn't burdened with a family and a nine-to-five.
>
> I have a family, and my job is more like 8a-10p ;-)
>
> > He's the Angry White
> > Male personified.
>
> I forget; who is dw?
Dave Weil?
MiNe 109
dave weil. His four-day work-week and freedom to travel as well as his
not maximizing his earning potential were a problem for Scott.
Stephen
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> [2pid's] the Angry White Male personified.
And this is news because... :-)
George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> > Last I heard, McCain says we have to stay in Iraq "for as long as it
> > takes". That's depressing, if not hopeless.
>
> How does that go: we have stay until they stop trying to kill us for
> staying?
I didn't realize our military is led by schoolmarms.
George M. Middius
Shhhh! said:
> > I forget; who is dw?
>
> Dave Weil?
Either that or a dishwasher.
George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > without a legacy.
> > >
> > > Wow...
> >
> > Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
>
> No. There's enough people.
Wrong frame of reference. Scottie's priest tells him there will never be
enough morons.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> In article
> <ba273091-0713-423d-bd50-d89256873...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 12, 6:23 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > without a legacy.
>
> > > Wow...
>
> > Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
>
> No. There's enough people.
But can there ever be enough angry white christians?
George M. Middius
MiNe 109 said:
> > I forget; who is dw?
>
> dave weil. His four-day work-week and freedom to travel as well as his
> not maximizing his earning potential were a problem for Scott.
ScottieLogic is quite peculiar. Poochie fantasized that dave's meager tax
burden added to California's fiscal problems even dave lives in Tennessee.
Jenn
George M. Middius <cmndr_...@comcast.net> wrote:
Or a Diskwasher ;-)
Clyde Slick
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > <bd9b2c7b-ab0c-42e4-ba70-370099f80...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying to
> > > > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > > > Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
> > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanapr2...
> > > > 93.column
>
> > > > "He's appeared on panels with Ayers,
>
> > > Oh my God!
>
> > > I've been on a panel with a convicted murderer. Guess I'm sunk.
>
> > > > served on a foundation board with
> > > > him
>
> > > Along with half of the bank presidents in Chicago.
>
> > > > and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
> > > > fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
>
> > > They are solid citizens now with lots of good works to their credit.
>
> > more
> > people.
>
> > > > of his campaigns."
>
> > > OMG!
>
> > > > Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level respected
> > > > community activist with his admitted past more troubling
>
> > > Why? He's doing good things.
>
> > his personal beliefs ahead of innocent peoples lives.
> > How do you forgive that?
> > He has no regrets. People like him remain dangerous.
> > Who knows what will inspire him to kill again.
>
> > > > apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers background to
> > > > launch his political career.
>
> > > > Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
> > > > But I do think they should be public knowledge.
>
> > > And they are.
>
>
> > > > job
> > > > of thouroughly vetting Obama.
>
> > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233.s...
>
> > > > Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> > > > democratic hopes
> > > > for a victory this fall IMO.
>
> > > Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
>
> The implication by Hannity is that Obama shares his past beliefs, which
> is ridiculous.
>
>
Hannity says Obama tolerates Ayers.That's not so great in itself, but
not fatal to hsi fitness. But it says something bad about hs lack of
interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
Clyde Slick
> Tremors surge through the vast right-wing idiocracy.
>
> > You ignore that Hillary claims experience
>
> because the loony right fears her so much. The scenario of President
> Hillary would have incited such panic that Kansas would try to override
> the Thirteenth Amendment.
Priorities, George.
First we have to take away their drivers licences.
Clyde Slick
>
> You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
>
> Stephen-
Because that is why we live, work and have families..
And it is why millions of immigrants came to this country and keep
coming to it.
Because parents want their kids to have a better chance at a good life
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> But it says something bad about hs lack of
> interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
Clyde Slick
>
> Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
I doubt it, base on his Communist comments on inheritance.
Come to think of it, even the Commies didn't do that.
Clyde Slick
because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
Ayers was a bomber. He admits it
One of his bombs killed people,
even though they were his associates.
If you want to lump the above in with Ayers, then
include FDR, Washington, Lincoln, Truman,
Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc.
After you are done, you can apply either for the job
of being Wrights successor, or, in the event of a divorce or unforseen
misfortune,
the next Mrs. Obama.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
> > distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
>
> because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Fantasy express, next stop Bucharest.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> > Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
>
> I doubt it, base on his Communist comments on inheritance.
> Come to think of it, even the Commies didn't do that.
The inheritance tax is obscenely low. No more than $200K should be
sheltered.
MiNe 109
<90e01f61-8b2e-49ea...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And this depends on capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than
earned income?
Perhaps you missed the implied comparison to Scott's attitude toward the
'undeserving' poor and ill.
Stephen
MiNe 109
<3e0d63d6-5589-4ff7...@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
You're usually sharper than this.
Stephen
MiNe 109
<2f89fd14-98ed-4d7a...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 22:41, George M. Middius <cmndr_geo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > But it says something bad about hs lack of
> > > interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
> >
> > If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
> > distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
>
> because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
Unless you count the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. There's also
the torture thing and that's not even taking into account the attacks on
US civil liberties.
Stephen
Clyde Slick
> Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Mai, 22:41, George M. Middius <cmndr_geo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > But it says something bad about hs lack of
> > > > interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
>
> > > If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
> > > distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
>
> > because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
>
> Unless you count the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. There's also
> the torture thing and that's not even taking into account the attacks on
> US civil liberties.
>
>
Already answered. You snipped out my list
of other warriors. You are free to include roosevelt
and Lincoln. Your arch enemy Bush is small potatoes
when it comes to blood and death as a result of war.
Throw in Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon, too.
>
>
>
> > Ayers was a bomber. He admits it
> > One of his bombs killed people,
> > even though they were his associates.
>
> > If you want to lump the above in with Ayers, then
> > include FDR, Washington, Lincoln, Truman,
> > Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc.
> > After you are done, you can apply either for the job
> > of being Wrights successor, or, in the event of a divorce or unforseen
> > misfortune,
> > the next Mrs. Obama.- Ascunde citatul -
>
> - Afişare text în citat -
Clyde Slick
> Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Mai, 19:32, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 12, 6:23 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hasn't Stephen procreated? I think he's ordered to in the bible.
>
> > I doubt it, base on his Communist comments on inheritance.
> > Come to think of it, even the Commies didn't do that.
>
> You're usually sharper than this.
>
You're the one who wants each baby to start with equal wealth.
George M. Middius
Clyde Slick said:
> You're the one who wants each baby to start with equal wealth.
How does society benefit from having thousands and thousands of profligate
wastrels pissing away fortunes while millions of poor people suffer? And
don't say poverty is inevitable. We could alleviate a lot of suffering,
and therefore crime, without trying to "cure" poverty.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
> On 12 Mai, 23:40, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <2f89fd14-98ed-4d7a-9286-c761e3a1f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 12 Mai, 22:41, George M. Middius <cmndr_geo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > But it says something bad about hs lack of
> > > > > interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
>
> > > > If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
> > > > distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
>
> > > because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
>
> > Unless you count the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. There's also
> > the torture thing and that's not even taking into account the attacks on
> > US civil liberties.
>
> Already answered. You snipped out my list
> of other warriors. You are free to include roosevelt
> and Lincoln. Your arch enemy Bush is small potatoes
> when it comes to blood and death as a result of war.
> Throw in Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon, too.
He didn't "snip" it. Watch:
> > > Ayers was a bomber. He admits it
> > > One of his bombs killed people,
> > > even though they were his associates.
>
> > > If you want to lump the above in with Ayers, then
> > > include FDR, Washington, Lincoln, Truman,
> > > Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc.
> > > After you are done, you can apply either for the job
> > > of being Wrights successor, or, in the event of a divorce or unforseen
> > > misfortune,
> > > the next Mrs. Obama.
Do you really compare the necessity of fighting the US civil war,
WWII, etc. with the necessity of our debacle in Iraq?
The only one you are close on is Vietnam. Mexico is a distant second.
"At least" it gave 2pid something to bitch about. ;-)
MiNe 109
<5bc23b85-8443-4a68...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 12 Mai, 23:40, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2f89fd14-98ed-4d7a-9286-c761e3a1f...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12 Mai, 22:41, George M. Middius <cmndr_geo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > Clyde Slick said:
> >
> > > > > But it says something bad about hs lack of
> > > > > interest in separating himself form morally reprehensible people.
> >
> > > > If that's your standard, why aren't you condemning McCain for failing to
> > > > distance himself from Bush, Cheney, Rove, et al.?
> >
> > > because they aren't morally reprehensible, dummy.
> >
> > Unless you count the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. There's also
> > the torture thing and that's not even taking into account the attacks on
> > US civil liberties.
> >
> >
>
> Already answered. You snipped out my list
> of other warriors.
I did not. The list is intact below.
> You are free to include roosevelt
> and Lincoln. Your arch enemy Bush is small potatoes
> when it comes to blood and death as a result of war.
Is this that moral relativism the righties go on about?
> Throw in Ike, JFK, LBJ and Nixon, too.
They had the good grace to be conflicted, except for Nixon.
Stephen
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Ayers was a bomber. He admits it
> > > One of his bombs killed people,
> > > even though they were his associates.
> >
> > > If you want to lump the above in with Ayers, then
> > > include FDR, Washington, Lincoln, Truman,
> > > Jackson, Grant, Eisenhower, LBJ, etc.
> > > After you are done, you can apply either for the job
> > > of being Wrights successor, or, in the event of a divorce or unforseen
> > > misfortune,
> > > the next Mrs. Obama.- Ascunde citatul -
> >
> > - Afi?are text ?n citat -
MiNe 109
<6d73fbcb-67f6-41dc...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Clyde Slick <Mr.cly...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, I was questioning Scott's premise that Obama's tax plan would cause
each baby to be equal.
Stephen
ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > <f20e308b-468b-42b8-9807-fb95c4525...@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > > > <a2da3e77-b644-4dca-be84-d285d602a...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 11 Mai, 16:29, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <bd9b2c7b-ab0c-42e4-ba70-370099f80...@d19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour
> > > > > > > > > trying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > > > > > > > Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanap
> > > > > > > >r2..
> > > > > > > >.
> > > > > > > > 93.column
>
> > > > > > > > "He's appeared on panels with Ayers,
>
> > > > > > > Oh my God!
>
> > > > > > > I've been on a panel with a convicted murderer. Guess I'm sunk.
>
> > > > > > > > served on a foundation board with
> > > > > > > > him
>
> > > > > > > Along with half of the bank presidents in Chicago.
>
> > > > > > > > and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
> > > > > > > > fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
>
> > > > > > > They are solid citizens now with lots of good works to their
> > > > > > > credit.
>
> > > > > > > > of his campaigns."
>
> > > > > > > OMG!
>
> > > > > > > > Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level
> > > > > > > > respected
> > > > > > > > community activist with his admitted past more troubling
>
> > > > > > > Why? He's doing good things.
>
> > > > > > > > apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers
> > > > > > > > background to
> > > > > > > > launch his political career.
>
> > > > > > > > Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
> > > > > > > > But I do think they should be public knowledge.
>
> > > > > > > And they are.
>
> > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > job
> > > > > > > > of thouroughly vetting Obama.
>
> > > > > > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233
> > > > > > > >.s..
> > > > > > > >.
>
> > > > > > > > Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> > > > > > > > democratic hopes
> > > > > > > > for a victory this fall IMO.
>
> > > > > > > Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
>
> > > > > > are, uh, criminals.
> > > > > > The valid questions on pardons might be whether the,
> > > > > > 'uh, criminal is repentant, and whether there was any kickback or
> > > > > > political favors in'regard to the pardon.
>
> > > > > And so this is relevant to this election how?
>
> > > > Exactly. How do Bush's action reflect on any of the current
> > > > candidates?
>
> > > > ScottW
>
> > > In the same way that President Clinton's actions do.
>
> > You ignore that Hillary claims experience gained in his
> > administration
>
> So her husband's pardons figure into this...how?
>
> > and does not state that Bill won't have a role in hers if elected.
> > So the policies and actions of that administration do reflect on
> > Hillary
>
> > ScottW
>
> lol
You don't think the Bill & Hillary team had a plan for her political
future before he left the white house? As such you don't think
Hillary was OK with those pardons?
Lol is not a good argument to refute the obvious.
ScottW
ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > <9d14cede-034c-4896-9379-705d13b47...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 11, 12:08 pm, Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > lol I just watched Sean Hannity spend most of a half hour trying
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > link Ayers with Obama.
>
> > > > > > Obama's links to Ayers are clear and publicly documented.
>
> > > > > >http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-oped0420chapmanapr2..
> > > > > >.
> > > > > > 93.column
>
> > > > > > "He's appeared on panels with Ayers,
>
> > > > > Oh my God!
>
> > > > > I've been on a panel with a convicted murderer. Guess I'm sunk.
>
> > > > > > served on a foundation board with
> > > > > > him
>
> > > > > Along with half of the bank presidents in Chicago.
>
> > > > > > and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife,
> > > > > > fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn.
>
> > > > > They are solid citizens now with lots of good works to their credit.
>
> > > > more
> > > > people.
>
> > > > > > of his campaigns."
>
> > > > > OMG!
>
> > > > > > Personally, I find the fact that Ayers can rise to the level
> > > > > > respected
> > > > > > community activist with his admitted past more troubling
>
> > > > > Why? He's doing good things.
>
> > > > his personal beliefs ahead of innocent peoples lives.
> > > > How do you forgive that?
> > > > He has no regrets. People like him remain dangerous.
> > > > Who knows what will inspire him to kill again.
>
> > > > > > apparent willingness to associate with someone of Ayers background to
> > > > > > launch his political career.
>
> > > > > > Wether you consider the links significant or not is up to you,
> > > > > > But I do think they should be public knowledge.
>
> > > > > And they are.
>
>
> > > > > > job
> > > > > > of thouroughly vetting Obama.
>
> > > > > >http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-radicals18apr18,0,131233.s..
> > > > > >.
>
> > > > > > Bill Clinton's pardon would be just as if not more significant to
> > > > > > democratic hopes
> > > > > > for a victory this fall IMO.
>
> > > > > Bush's pardon of drug dealers hasn't seemed to hurt him.
>
> > > do change. At any rate, Obama just KNOWS the guy,
>
> > people you just "know"?
> > That doesn't pass the smell test any better than Obamas claims
> > he didn't know what the Rev. Wright was saying.
>
> > > as do many others.
> > > The implication by Hannity is that Obama shares his past beliefs, which
> > > is ridiculous.
>
> > beliefs.
> > We don't really know what Obama's beliefs are as he has lost a bit of
> > credibility
> > with his comments that aren't completely factual.
>
> > > > Just another tick off the approval rating.
> > > > Bush isn't running for president, Obama is.
> > > > There's a reason Clinton waited till his presidency was
> > > > nearly over to go on his pardon spree.
>
> > > Which is the same reason that every President seems to do that.
>
> > Compare Clintons pardon list to every other president
As an academic, you really don't follow instructions very well.
D- (and I'm being generous).
ScottW
ScottW
Then throw in Bill Clinton and Hillary.
The policy of regime change in Iraq was hatched by them.
ScottW
ScottW
>
>
>
>
>
> ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:> > > > > <443b4bca-caa3-44b2-b02d-8103d9089...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 12, 6:57 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mai, 21:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > > > > > > > <artygu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I think Obama offers, among other things, hope to the US for
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > time in a very long time, and at a time she desperately needs
> > > > > > > > > it.
>
> > > > > > > > Hope I can afford the high taxes.
>
> > > > > > > If you're in the bracket whose taxes might be raised, you can.
>
> > > > > > You won't starve but the opportunity to maybe establish a
> > > > > > college fund or loadup for retirement or buy your kids a house
> > > > > > or a trust fund for grandkids etc is severely diminished.
>
> > > > > If we're talking about the recent discussion of raising the capital
> > > > > gains tax, 'severely' isn't a good description.
>
> > > > Doubling the tax isn't severe?
>
> > > Raising capital gains to the same level as earned income isn't.
>
> > > > > > You work hard, get a great job in a young company that enjoys
> > > > > > success and provides opportunity to share that success via options
> > > > > > and what do you suppose the gov't will do?
> > > > > > Even under Bush's cuts your gonna pay in the low 40%s.
> > > > > > Under Obama, you will be looking at 50%.
>
> > > > > You could restructure your compensation.
>
> > > > No you can't. It's all ordinary income and you can't even income
> > > > average
> > > > anymore. You get F'd. All this BS about rich people able
> > > > to hide their money is a bunch of crap when it comes to working
> > > > people getting a bit of the benefit of their corp success via
> > > > Non-incentive options or bonus's.
>
> > > Sorry. I don't make enough money to know what you're talking about.
>
> > So your comments above are admittedly made in ignorance.
> > Is that a habit or yours?
>
> Yes, I'm personally ignorant of rich people entitlement although I can
> detect it in others.
There it is. The ridiculous assumption that people are rich not
because they work harder or are just simply smarter or that you're
just a fat lazy piano player who wishes he had a voice,
but because they got some "entitlement".
Poor people are poor because they settled for it. They didn't get
educated or work hard or start a business. They'd rather sit on their
ass and whine about being poor
rather than doing what it takes to succeed.
There isn't a whole lot of difference between you and that fat lady
who was crying on TV about being shoved out of her apt in Houston
after free rent for a year.
She'd done nothing in a year to support herself and was still too fat
to walk.
Her quote, "I may be poor, but I don't like to live poor."
Well I work and I don't like to pay for fat lazy people to sit on
their dumb asses.
ScottW
ScottW
> > > In article
> > > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > without a legacy.
>
> > > Wow...
>
>
I actually agree with you.
ScottW
ScottW
> et>,
>
> Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > without a legacy.
>
> > Wow...
>
> isn't burdened with a family and a nine-to-five. He's the Angry White
> Male personified.
DWs position was that he didn't work any more than he had to and he
enjoyed that lifestyle because his taxes were so low. He chose to
play the system to pay less than his share while advocating that "rich
people" pick up the slack.
His position, and now yours, was the ultimately in selfish and lazy
hypocrisy.
You want poor people to get more assistance. Work harder and mover
your fat lazy ass up the still progressive tax scales.
ScottW
ScottW
> > MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <jennconductsREMOVETHIS-FFBF97.16232212052...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.n
> > > et>,
> > > Jenn <jennconductsREMOVET...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <94674314-7131-4bff-bfc5-d11c4db44...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > ScottW <Scott...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 12, 11:09 am, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I'm not sympathetic to this problem.
>
> > > > > Mostly because you're impotence has left you
> > > > > without a legacy.
>
> > > > Wow...
>
> > > Now that dw's left the group, he has to lash out at someone else who
> > > isn't burdened with a family and a nine-to-five.
>
>
> > > He's the Angry White
> > > Male personified.
>
>
> not maximizing his earning potential were a problem for Scott.
Wrong. It was his failure to accept that he wasn't (by his own
choice) paying his fair share while he happily advocated that others
pay more.
ScottW
ScottW
wrote:
> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > > I forget; who is dw?
>
> > dave weil. His four-day work-week and freedom to travel as well as his
> > not maximizing his earning potential were a problem for Scott.
>
> burden added to California's fiscal problems even dave lives in Tennessee.
You're such a 'tard. Our fax tax burden debates were federal.
ScottW
ScottW
> Clyde Slick <Mr.clydesl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 12 Mai, 14:09, MiNe 109 <smcelr...@POPaustin.rr.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <443b4bca-caa3-44b2-b02d-8103d9089...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > You had yours. Why do your kids deserve an unearned head start?
>
> > > Stephen-
>
> > Because that is why we live, work and have families..
> > And it is why millions of immigrants came to this country and keep
> > coming to it.
> > Because parents want their kids to have a better chance at a good life
>
> And this depends on capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than
> earned income?
>
> Perhaps you missed the implied comparison to Scott's attitude toward the
> 'undeserving' poor and ill.
How do you plan to identify the deserving and the undeserving poor?
ScottW
Jenn
<71dc6138-1fb6-432a...@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I'm so "wounded".
So few things change...
Jenn
<249a185f-4764-494a...@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
ScottW <Scot...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Of course.
> As such you don't think
> Hillary was OK with those pardons?
I don't know, and neither do you.
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
Your pea-brained assumptions do not make them "obvious".
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
That's absolutely wrong:
The basic policy of the Clinton administration was to maintain
sanctions on Iraq. The policy was thoroughly inadequate to the nature
of the threat that Saddam posed, particularly as it became known after
Hussein Kamil's defection. However, the peace and prosperity America
enjoyed during the 1990's dulled popular sensibilities about the
existence of danger from Iraq. This general complacency was reinforced
by a strong tendency among the Iraq experts in policy-making circles
to tailor their work to accommodate the Clinton administration's
position.
The new Bush administration will inherit not so much a policy on Iraq,
as eight years of neglect. If the new administration continues on the
path Clinton has laid, it will find that the threat posed by Saddam
will increase significantly during its term in office.
The alternative is to resolve, at the outset, on adopting a vigorous
policy toward Iraq. That would entail reestablishing the goal of the
administration that fought the Gulf War: ousting Saddam. If the new
administration were to make a serious and credible commitment to that
goal, it would have support from a significant number of states in the
region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt.
However, absent such a commitment, and decisive action, the second
Bush administration, like the first, may find itself one day surprised
by another major act of Iraqi aggression. But the next war will be
Saddam's last stand. And it will probably be significantly different
from the previous Gulf War. Above all, it will probably not be limited
to conventional weapons. Indeed, it may prove to be the awful,
shocking, but seminal event, that ends the complacency, self-
absorption, and suffocating consensus that led to the re-emergence of
the Saddam threat in the first place.
http://www.meib.org/articles/0101_ir1.htm
Note who wrote this article, 2pid:
Laurie Mylroie (born 1953) is a U.S. author who has written several
controversial and heavily criticized books on the subject of Iraq and
the War on Terror. Notably, Mylroie contends that the Iraqi government
under Saddam Hussein sponsored the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and
many subsequent terrorist attacks. She is one of a few commentators
who has consistently held that Iraq was complicit and involved in the
September 11, 2001 attacks and subsequent anthrax postal attacks.
Notably, her writings are viewed as being influential among
neoconservatives during the buildup to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Mylroie
Your neocons are entirely responsible. bushie was the pliable and dull
person they needed, and he complied.
Where do you get your information? Out of cereal boxes?