OT - Do the Republicans have ANYONE I can vote for in 2012?
Too_Many_Tools
that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
So far the Republican lineup looks like a bunch of clowns...and a
couple of monkeys thrown in for good measure.
Five Republican straw polls and five different winners...that tells
us that the patients are running the conservative asylum.
Can't the GOP find even ONE decent candidate?
Looks like America will be voting Obama in 2012.
TMT
Wisconsin Welfare Union Worker
bf6069...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
for a straw.
Bryan R. Cox
bf6069...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
> 2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
shit to sell next election.
SAN ANTONIO - Tempers flared during a town hall meeting on the
Dream Act Tuesday night. During the meeting a high school
government teacher from John F. Kennedy called the local Tea
Party president a Nazi.
The exchange was recorded and posted on You tube.
"When you get to name calling that just shows that there is no
logic to your argument any further. It's all emotion, " said
George Rodriguez, President of the San Antonio Tea Party.
The teacher's emotion came from a panelist's comment that school
administration should deport undocumented students.
"So you would have students in this room deported?" asked the
teacher.
The panelist replied, "Yes, I would if they were illegal. You
bet."
Rodriguez also told the teacher if the person is here illegally,
they are breaking the law.
"You know what I would have? I would have you teach more
balanced - conservative," added Rodriguez.
After those remarks is when the teacher made the Nazi comment
saying, "You can just say what you are - a Nazi."
Edgewood ISD will not be taking any disciplinary action against
the teacher.
"He realized he shouldn't have gone that far, and he gave us a
statement and expressed his concern and regret," said district
spokesperson Maclovio Perez.
Perez adds the teacher was at the town hall meeting on his own
time and students were invited, but not required to go. Perez
went onto to say the teacher is a good educator and has been
with the district for more than six years.
The Tea Party would like the chance to go and speak to the
districts high school students "to explain to them our position
in a controlled, quite, calm manner" added Rodriguez.
Perez said he will proposed the idea to the school
administration.
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/Teacher-calls-local-Tea-
Party-president-a-Nazi/_2b16h_Ir0W12AQGP000Ww.cspx
Crimes Of Democrats
bf6069...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> that
http://cbssanfran.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/deborah_edgerly1.j
pg?w=300
Cash-strapped Oakland has spent nearly $1 million and counting
on outside lawyers to defend the city's decision to fire former
City Administrator Deborah Edgerly and her top assistant, Cheryl
Thompson.
Edgerly and Thompson were both fired in 2008 by then-Mayor Ron
Dellums after Edgerly was accused of warning her nephew William
Lovan, a convicted felon who worked for the city as a parking
meter repairman, of a planned police gang sweep.
Lovan resigned from the city last September after his arrest for
drug possession. At the time, he was on home detention for a gun
conviction - and soon after was sentenced to 16 months in state
prison for violating parole.
Edgerly and Thompson were both at-will employees and served at
the mayor's pleasure, so they could be fired without cause.
The two fought back, however, filing separate lawsuits claiming
sex discrimination. They also claimed that the real reason they
had been shown the door was their refusal to go along with
Dellums' use of city money to pay for a new office for his wife,
who was acting as a City Hall adviser, and for refusing to use
city money to pay for a trip Dellums took to South Africa a year
after he took office.
Thompson also claimed that Edgerly had promised her a severance
package when she signed on as her $216,000-a-year assistant.
The San Francisco law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, which
was brought in to defend the city, has so far billed Oakland
$571,000 in Thompson's case and $368,000 in Edgerly's - at an
average of $400 an hour.
City Attorney Barbara Parker felt the city could win both cases.
But a majority of the City Council decided last week that it was
time to cut its losses and pay Thompson $500,000 to go away.
Edgerly's case is still outstanding.
Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente - who was joined only by
colleague Jane Brunner in opposing Thompson's settlement -
called the deal "unacceptable and irresponsible," one that would
open the door to future lawsuits by disgruntled or terminated
employees.
"To date, we have spent more than half a million dollars on
outside legal fees defending this case," countered Councilwoman
Desley Brooks, who supported the settlement. "It was anticipated
that we would spend at least a half a million dollars more to
continue the litigation."
Brooks said the city had a chance to settle Thompson's suit
early on for less than $100,000, but said former City Attorney
John Russo hadn't told the council.
"Mr. Russo stated in the media that he would never settle Ms.
Thompson's case, and as a result he cost the city $1 million,"
Brooks said.
Russo, now Alameda's city manager, says Brooks had her own
reasons for wanting the case settled.
"Since Deborah and Cheryl filed their bogus lawsuits, Desley has
been strongly advocating to pay them off because she owed them,"
Russo said - a reference to his contention that the two looked
the other way on questionable payroll matters involving Brooks'
office.
Brooks, however, points out that it was fellow Councilwomen
Rebecca Kaplan and Pat Kernighan who made the motions to settle
the Thompson suit.
By the way, Edgerly's suit is scheduled for trial next month.
Among those on the former city administrator's witness list is
Dellums and another ex-mayor, who hired her for the job - Gov.
Jerry Brown.
Lee's air force: After weeks of being pounded on TV by rivals
Leland Yee and Dennis Herrera, San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee - and
his well-heeled friends - are firing back.
Lee's spot, which began airing Friday, takes Yee and Herrera to
task for using public dollars to hammer the mayor in their ads.
Lee is not accepting public financing, but he is benefiting from
a big-time cable TV buy by investor Ron Conway and Salesforce
chairman Marc Benioff.
Their 30-second spot, which begins airing today, touts Lee's
background and achievements - from attracting jobs to balancing
the city's budget - and comes just days before voters start
receiving mail-in ballots.
The ad was produced by AKPD Message and Media, the same team
that made spots for President Obama's 2008 campaign.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/26/BAGU1L8NV9.DTL
Crimes Of Democrats
bf6069...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> that
The cancer patient who died because of a medical error at
Oakland's Alta Bates Summit Medical Center was killed by a
nutritional supplement that a replacement nurse mistakenly put
into a catheter meant for delivering medicine to her
bloodstream, The Chronicle has learned.
The supplement was supposed to be put into a tube that ran into
66-year-old Judith Ming's stomach, said one source close to the
investigation. Ming, who suffered from ovarian cancer and had
been hospitalized since early July, died early Saturday, soon
after the replacement nurse made the mistake.
The nurse, a 23-year-old woman from New Orleans, was in a state
of shock after realizing what had happened, said a source who
spoke on condition of anonymity because patient privacy laws
prevent public discussion of many of the case's details.
The woman was one of about 500 replacement nurses brought in by
Sutter Health to staff its Oakland hospital and two Berkeley
campuses when the California Nurses Association called a one-day
strike for Thursday. Sutter kept its replacements for five days,
locking out its regular nurses until today.
The union employees were among 23,000 nurses in Northern and
Central California who walked off the job to protest possible
cuts to benefits and services.
Veteran nurses at Alta Bates Summit charged that the medical
blunder would never have happened had they been allowed to
return to work Friday. Sutter officials countered that the fill-
in nurses were fully qualified and that the company had been
forced to sign a contract with its replacement provider giving
the temporary nurses five days of work.
Traveling nurses
The nurse who inserted the nutritional supplement into the
incorrect catheter was "100 percent credentialed" to provide
care to cancer patients, one source said. She is employed by
Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing in Oneonta, Ala., which
provides temporary nurses to hospitals.
"We take great pride in providing our travel nurses with first-
rate assignments in exciting and adventurous locations," the
company's website says. "Our top rates and benefits package are
setting a standard of excellence in the temporary medical
staffing industry."
Company representatives did not return phone calls Monday.
Sutter officials are at a loss to understand how the nurse made
the error that led to Ming's death, sources say.
Pieces don't fit
The nutritional supplement, which Ming was receiving to boost
her calorie intake, has a warning on the container lid
explaining how it is supposed to be given to a patient. Adding
to the mystery is that the attachment from the supplement's
container doesn't fit the catheter that was inserted in Ming to
deliver medicine, one source said.
"So she had to jury-rig it," the source said of the replacement
nurse, whose name has not been released. "It was a horrendous
mistake, and nobody can figure out how it happened."
The catheter leading to Ming's stomach was attached to her
abdomen, while the one that delivered medicine to her
bloodstream was inserted into an arm, the source said.
Soon after Ming died, just after 1 a.m. Saturday, Sutter
officials notified the Alameda County coroner's office. The
coroner, in turn, called the police - and, in short order, six
Oakland squad cars with eight officers were at the hospital, and
the nurse was taken to police headquarters for questioning.
She was later released, pending completion of the police
investigation. As of late Monday, police were still awaiting the
coroner's report to determine the cause of death.
"What I can tell you is this was a very tragic, very unusual
mistake," said Sutter spokeswoman Carolyn Kemp, who declined to
comment on specific details of Ming's death. "There is a family,
a young nurse and a hospital community all devastated by this."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/27/MN4C1L9Q2L.DTL
Obama Flunked Math
bf6069...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> that
he spews and does nothing.
'We got it wrong�. If this is not quite the slogan for Labour�s
annual conference in Liverpool, it is the message the leadership
wants the public to hear, though without having to apologise for
the mistakes made by the last government. What they really mean
by this phoney self-flagellation is this: if we spent too much,
it was with the best of intentions; if we borrowed too much,
well so did everyone else; if the economy went down the pan,
blame the bankers.
And as for immigration � it was all the fault of the Poles. �I
think we underestimated the level of immigration from Poland
which had a big effect on people,� said Ed Miliband.
But hang on a second. Labour came to office in 1997 and Poland
did not join the EU until 2004. Yet whereas in 1996, net
immigration to the UK was 40,000, by 2003 it was 150,000. It is
now about 250,000. As even a cursory glance at immigration
graphs will show, the beginnings of this rapid rise long
predated the accession to the EU of the former Soviet bloc
countries of eastern Europe.
True, the figure rose again after the Poles joined and the
Labour government decided in its wisdom to allow the new
arrivals to come and work in Britain, even though it could have
denied them access for up to seven years � as Germany and France
did. Whitehall officials estimated that only 13,000 workers from
the East would come looking for jobs; in the event it was half a
million, which makes even Treasury growth forecasts look like a
paragon of accuracy.
But the fact remains that net immigration had almost quadrupled
before the enlargement of the EU. Mr Miliband�s mea culpa is,
therefore, just so much hot air. He is trying to give the
impression that apart from under-estimating the influx from
Poland and the other new members, it was really all beyond
Labour�s control.
In fact, the last Labour government did more than �get it wrong�
on immigration: either wilfully or recklessly, it ripped up a
national consensus that had prevailed since the early 1970s.
Next month, in fact, sees the 40th anniversary of one of the
most seminal pieces of legislation of the post-war years, the
1971 Immigration Act.
It was fashioned to take the heat out of an incendiary political
debate over levels of immigration that were far smaller than
anything we are seeing today. The issue had exploded in the late
1960s with Enoch Powell�s �rivers of blood� speech and his
subsequent dismissal from the shadow cabinet by Edward Heath.
But the Tories could not evade a subject that was causing deep
disquiet in the country and when Heath took office in 1970 it
was on a promise to reduce significantly the number of people
coming from what was then called the New Commonwealth,
essentially the Indian sub-continent, for whom there had
previously been free admission to the UK.
When the Immigration Bill received its second reading in the
Commons on March 8 1971, Reginald Maudling, the Home Secretary,
said: �If we are to get progress in community relations, we must
give assurance to the people who were already here before the
large wave of immigration that this will be the end and that
there will be no further large-scale immigration.�
The controls introduced by the Act put an end to mass
immigration. From that point on until the mid-1990s, net
immigration to the UK ran consistently around or below 50,000
per annum.
This was a level that secured widespread public approval; and
even if a few fringe parties continued to bang on about it,
immigration was no longer a mainstream political issue, The 1987
Conservative manifesto�s entry amounted to just a few sentences
and read: �Immigration for settlement is now at its lowest level
since control of Commonwealth immigration first began in 1962.
Firm but fair immigration controls are essential for harmonious
and improving community relations.�
By 2005, however, the Tories were accusing the government of
�losing control of the borders� and promising new limits, quotas
and frontier checks. �We need to ensure that immigration is
effectively managed, in the interests of all Britons, old and
new,� said the manifesto � echoing the words used by Maudling in
1971.
So, Labour did more than simply �get it wrong�. It undermined
the fundamental basis of the 1971 settlement, which was to
ensure that immigration did not become a source of friction
within communities, as it clearly has done once more.
Politicians have always felt it necessary to emphasise the
economic benefits of immigration, even though a House of Lords
committee showed these to be a myth.
But they often shy away from discussing its social significance
� the impact on communities of a rapidly changing demography
about which Maudling spoke 40 years ago.
For the first time since the Norman Conquest, the population is
growing primarily because of immigration. This has had a
significant impact on schools and hospitals, on infrastructure
and housing, especially in London and the South-East, where most
immigrants settle.
None of this was planned for. Moreover, despite a recent fall in
emigration, far more British people are departing these shores
than are returning after a period abroad. So the ethnic mix of
the country is changing faster than at any time in our history.
All this happened without any discussion; nobody was asked at an
election to support a new policy to replace the 1971 Act. When,
in 2001, the Tories tried to get a national debate going they
were howled down as racists.
Now the best the Labour leader can come up with is that his
party �got it wrong.� So, that�s all right then.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8789777/The-
Left-is-rewriting-Britains-immigration-history.html
slate_leeper
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
>that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
>2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/arms-and-the-greeks.htm
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Why limit it to 2012? The GOTP has not had anyone worth voting for in
about a century.
And it's not looking good for the next century.
deepdudu
<bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
>>that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
>>2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>
>
>For you, that would be a socialist. Be serious.
>
>
educated enough to know what that is.
Frank Bello
> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
deepdudu
wrote:
>Deep Dudu wrote:
>
>> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>
>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
definition is socialism. If you use our socialist roadways then you
are a socialist. You just are too stupid to understand the terms so
don't even know what it is you are doing.
Frank Bello
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:06:38 -0400, Frank Bello <Ant...@bass.gov>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>>
>>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
>
>
> Our federal/state/county/city road and bridge system is paid for by
> taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
> definition is socialism.
You are attempting to say(and retardedly) that ALL Governments are
"Socialist", because they have roads, and that ALL people that use said
roads are "Socialists."
Well, that's just proof posisitive that yer a 5 star GENERAL RETARD!
> If you use our socialist roadways then you
> are a socialist.
claims to own then, eh?
Yer a socilaist. You both admit it and claim to be proud of it.
I am not a retarded Socialist like you.
So IF you had a driveway that YOU, a socialist, built, and I drove up
on it, I would still NOT be a socialistic retard like you.
But YOU claim otherwise.
> You just are too stupid to understand the terms so
> don't even know what it is you are doing.
And that you are ALWAYS wrong, too.
It's not "Rocket Surgery",(a term you said doesn't exist, or understand)
you brain damaged retard.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL..I think you may be right.
Note that I asked the conservatives here to tell us who is a worthy
Republican candidate to consider...and what we see as responses is
rants, curses, cut and pastes, etc....behavior of mentally unbalanced
individuals.
And we have yet to see even one response that indicates a worthy
Republican candidate, why he/she is worth and how that individual will
defeat Obama in 2012.
It tells us much about the overall intelligence of the conservatives
here on Usenet.
My dog could do better.
TMT
Frank
By his logic, every man is a woman because most of the body parts are
the same.
He does not understand that we need government to do things we cannot do
as individuals and need someone to keep order.
We do not need someone to tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets,
cars, etc that we must buy.
Frank Bello
With 9 or 220 volts?
> By his logic, every man is a woman because most of the body parts are
> the same.
And HE wants his sexual parts interchangable in some Northeastern
European country!
> He does not understand that we need government to do things we cannot do
> as individuals and need someone to keep order.
> We do not need someone to tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets,
> cars, etc that we must buy.
Indeed.
I already know how to save money.
Frank
guys that believe all their followers do not even know how to tie their
own shoes ;)
Frank Bello
> My dog could do better.
Regarding your postings to Usenet and all things knowledgeable, YOU are
finally correct!
What kind of dog DO you have?
F. George McDuffee
<too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Republican candidate to consider...
>And we have yet to see even one response that indicates a worthy
>Republican candidate, why he/she is worth and how that individual will defeat Obama in 2012.
And this is the crux of the problem...
There are no agreed on positive objective criteria and only
a few agreed on negative criteria, e.g. pedophilia. What
one group sees as an asset, such as an honorable military
career, the other group see as a liability, i.e. "war
monger."
Every laudatory descriptive term has its negative
counterpart. Every candidate being human has their point(s)
of weakness, and none of them can fulfill the transitory
wants, needs and whims of everyone all the time.
Indeed, a candidate that is highly tolerable, if not ideal,
under one set of circumstances or conditions, will be
unsatisfactory under different circumstances and conditions,
both as a candidate and as an elected official.
However, what is clear is the current incumbents and most
known candidates for public office at all levels of
government are far too committed to "business as usual" for
their special interest donor groups, because "business as
usual" is rapidly driving the Republic (i.e. all of us) over
several cliffs, such as finance/banking, exponentially
increasing governmental debt, continued gross excess of
imports over exports (trade deficit), deindustrialization,
energy dependency, supranational corporationism, and foreign
adventurism (wars).
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
deepdudu
<frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>His brain does need rewiring.
>By his logic, every man is a woman because most of the body parts are
>the same.
>He does not understand that we need government to do things we cannot do
>as individuals and need someone to keep order.
>We do not need someone to tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets,
>cars, etc that we must buy.
you need, but those that you think you do not are totally unacceptable
to you. So socialism is fine with you, but only you get to decide
what is needed and what isn't. Gotcha.
Frank Bello
fucking retard.
How stump stupid are you?
Under YOUR "version" of Socialism, YOU can NOT own that property that
YOU said you own in the Rockies.
YOU can not own GUNS for any reason, because, YOU said that "Socialism"
protects ALL, feeds all, and is perfect!"
So why do YOU SOCIALIST RETARDS need firearms, when "The State" will
provide?
deepdudu
wrote:
>Deep Dudu wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:46:40 -0400, Frank
>> <frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>His brain does need rewiring.
>>>By his logic, every man is a woman because most of the body parts are
>>>the same.
>>>He does not understand that we need government to do things we cannot do
>>>as individuals and need someone to keep order.
>>>We do not need someone to tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets,
>>>cars, etc that we must buy.
>>
>>
>> So you are perfectly willing to accept mechanisms of socialism that
>> you need, but those that you think you do not are totally unacceptable
>> to you. So socialism is fine with you, but only you get to decide
>> what is needed and what isn't. Gotcha.
>
>
>Socialism is NEVER acceptable here in the USA or OTHER free nations, you
>fucking retard.
>How stump stupid are you?
as individuals" so you accept socialism as an integral part of
government you enjoy every day. Thanks for playing.
>
>Under YOUR "version" of Socialism, YOU can NOT own that property that
>YOU said you own in the Rockies.
communism. They are two completely different things.
>
>YOU can not own GUNS for any reason, because, YOU said that "Socialism"
>protects ALL, feeds all, and is perfect!"
>
>So why do YOU SOCIALIST RETARDS need firearms, when "The State" will
>provide?
>
>
>
which many elements of private property and capitalism are intermixed
with socialist systems provided by government. See now, isn't that
special? You learnt sumthin today.
Jeff M
I doubt that.
Scout
"Deep Dudu" wrote in message news:4e81fa3f...@text.giganews.com...
> wrote:
>
>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>
>>> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>>
>>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
>
> Our federal/state/county/city road and bridge system is paid for by
> taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
> definition is socialism.
build and maintain a private road.
Frank Bello
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:25:11 -0400, Frank Bello <Ant...@bass.gov>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 14:46:40 -0400, Frank
>>><frankperi...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>His brain does need rewiring.
>>>>By his logic, every man is a woman because most of the body parts are
>>>>the same.
>>>>He does not understand that we need government to do things we cannot do
>>>>as individuals and need someone to keep order.
>>>>We do not need someone to tell us what kind of light bulbs, toilets,
>>>>cars, etc that we must buy.
>>>
>>>
>>>So you are perfectly willing to accept mechanisms of socialism that
>>>you need, but those that you think you do not are totally unacceptable
>>>to you. So socialism is fine with you, but only you get to decide
>>>what is needed and what isn't. Gotcha.
>>
>>
>>Socialism is NEVER acceptable here in the USA or OTHER free nations, you
>>fucking retard.
>>How stump stupid are you?
> You already admitted you were willing to accept things "we cannot do
> as individuals" so you accept socialism as an integral part of
> government you enjoy every day. Thanks for playing.
retarded socialist retard!
Like Lookout, your "reading compression" sucks muck!
>>Under YOUR "version" of Socialism, YOU can NOT own that property that
>>YOU said you own in the Rockies.
>
>
> No, moron, nothing in socialism outlaws private property. That is
> communism. They are two completely different things.
So take a week, and make up your pathetic little mind!
YOU "desire" Communism/Socialism, where everything is everybody's, and
You HAVE to share... Including your MRE's!
YOU ARE A RETARDED LIAR!
>>YOU can not own GUNS for any reason, because, YOU said that "Socialism"
>>protects ALL, feeds all, and is perfect!"
> Never said that.
You just never realized what the truth is!
Because if you WERE a true SOCIALIST RETARD, like you say you are, you
would HAVE TO ADMIT IT!
Now you run away, like the cowardly pussy you are, when you are SHOWN
what your kind is like?
>>So why do YOU SOCIALIST RETARDS need firearms, when "The State" will
>>provide?
> Nothing in socialism is absolute or total.
fucking retard!
YOU have been saying that YOU live in a cave,waiting in fear!
BOO!
> We have a mixed system in
> which many elements of private property and capitalism are intermixed
> with socialist systems provided by government. See now, isn't that
> special? You learnt sumthin today.
Buy fresh fruit and veggies... and some FISH!
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
"we need government to do things we cannot do
as individuals and need someone to keep order."
snicker...
de...@dudu.org
PUBLIC (ie socialist) ownership and maintenance of the interstate,
state, county, and city road systems. All of which are legally owned
by the appropriate local government therefore are socialism at work.
Socialism you claim to hate but you enjoy the benefits of every day.
Scout
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:1ok487ho24ehkv62p...@4ax.com...
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Deep Dudu" wrote in message news:4e81fa3f...@text.giganews.com...
>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:06:38 -0400, Frank Bello <Ant...@bass.gov>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>>>>
>>>>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
>>>
>>> Our federal/state/county/city road and bridge system is paid for by
>>> taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
>>> definition is socialism.
>>
>>Please list for me how to obtain money from the federal/state/county/city
>>to
>>build and maintain a private road.
>>
> We are not talking about private roads moron.
result.
> Again, this is about
> PUBLIC (ie socialist) ownership and maintenance of the interstate,
> state, county, and city road systems.
All countries build roads, but that doesn't make it socialist.
No more than having multiple capitalists owning stock in a company turns
them into socialists.
The only way to can turn public roads into socialism is if you are using
some weird twisted personal definition for the term.
Oh, but then you do regularly invent your own definitions for the terms and
words you use, don't you?
> All of which are legally owned
> by the appropriate local government therefore are socialism at work.
All I can say....is twisted personal definition.
Meanwhile, the REST of the world doesn't see it that way.
> Socialism you claim to hate but you enjoy the benefits of every day.
definition?
Scout
"Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
news:j5tkva$k2k$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> <de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
> news:1ok487ho24ehkv62p...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 18:19:51 -0400, "Scout"
>> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Deep Dudu" wrote in message news:4e81fa3f...@text.giganews.com...
>>>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 10:06:38 -0400, Frank Bello <Ant...@bass.gov>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>>>>>
>>>>>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
>>>>
>>>> Our federal/state/county/city road and bridge system is paid for by
>>>> taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
>>>> definition is socialism.
>>>
>>>Please list for me how to obtain money from the federal/state/county/city
>>>to
>>>build and maintain a private road.
>>>
>> We are not talking about private roads moron.
>
> So once again we see that you define the topic to cherry pick your desired
> result.
>
>> Again, this is about
>> PUBLIC (ie socialist) ownership and maintenance of the interstate,
>> state, county, and city road systems.
Oh, another note here to Dudu. Not all roads open to the public for their
use are owned and maintained by the government.
Yet, they are a part of our road system.
So it seems to me you are ignoring part of our road and bridge system simply
because it it falls to conform to the point you want to make.
Thus my comment above about cherry picking.
Scout
There is a public road that runs through my property. Technically, I own it.
However the state maintains it.
It is public road, but it's not owned by the government.
So how exactly does that fit into your analysis?
de...@dudu.org
dolt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>
>> All of which are legally owned
>> by the appropriate local government therefore are socialism at work.
>
>I suppose it's socialism that the government owns it's own buildings?
>
>All I can say....is twisted personal definition.
>
>Meanwhile, the REST of the world doesn't see it that way.
>
>
>> Socialism you claim to hate but you enjoy the benefits of every day.
>
>Would that be socialism as you've defined it, or the generally accepted
>definition?
>
de...@dudu.org
>
>
>>>>>>Deep Dudu wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Everybody is a socialist, moron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just you, and a select other retards, you retarded moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> Our federal/state/county/city road and bridge system is paid for by
>>>>> taxes and services provided by the government so therefore by
>>>>> definition is socialism.
>>>>
>>>>Please list for me how to obtain money from the federal/state/county/city
>>>>to
>>>>build and maintain a private road.
>>>>
>>> We are not talking about private roads moron.
>>
>> So once again we see that you define the topic to cherry pick your desired
>> result.
>>
>>> Again, this is about
>>> PUBLIC (ie socialist) ownership and maintenance of the interstate,
>>> state, county, and city road systems.
>
>Oh, another note here to Dudu. Not all roads open to the public for their
>use are owned and maintained by the government.
>
>Yet, they are a part of our road system.
>
>So it seems to me you are ignoring part of our road and bridge system simply
>because it it falls to conform to the point you want to make.
>
>Thus my comment above about cherry picking.
rather than deal with the issue you obsess over irrelevent exceptions.
So now you are going to obsess over private roads that have public
easements on them rather than deal with the truth of the fact that
it's the government that owns and maintains ALL PUBLIC roadways.
Therefore it's the government that provides for safe operation of our
road system therefore owns the means of production of tranportation
support services therefore meets the definition of socialism. You
lose again. Give it up. You are bringing a knife to a gunfight.
Scout
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:qmn487lcijvl3dgmr...@4ax.com...
Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes your
whole socialism speel.
Oh, but that's right you would have us ignore that which contradicts your
claims.
I will simply note that having a public road system is a LONG way from the
definition of socialism you've cited.
>>> All of which are legally owned
>>> by the appropriate local government therefore are socialism at work.
>>
>>I suppose it's socialism that the government owns it's own buildings?
>>
>>All I can say....is twisted personal definition.
>
> crack a book once in awhile and you might not be so ignorant.
>>Meanwhile, the REST of the world doesn't see it that way.
>>
>>
>>> Socialism you claim to hate but you enjoy the benefits of every day.
>>
>>Would that be socialism as you've defined it, or the generally accepted
>>definition?
>>
> http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism
So much for that definition.
Scout
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:urn4879271orfiqen...@4ax.com...
> rather than deal with the issue you obsess over irrelevant exceptions.
Oh, so you admit there are exceptions.
> So now you are going to obsess over private roads that have public
> easements on them rather than deal with the truth of the fact that
> it's the government that owns and maintains ALL PUBLIC roadways.
Some PUBLIC roadways are PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED.
Damn, there I am throwing facts at you that you what to claim are irrelevant
because they don't conform to what you wish to assert.
> Therefore it's the government that provides for safe operation of our
> road system
> therefore owns the means of production
You do understand the difference in meaning between stating "the" and "a",
right?
> of tranportation
> support services therefore meets the definition of socialism.
So unless you wish to assert that roads are the entire sum of our means of
production....then you haven't met the definition cited.
>You
> lose again. Give it up. You are bringing a knife to a gunfight.
jim
>
> So what exact product do roads produce?
Does that mean socialized medicine is not possible.
>
> Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes your
> whole socialism speel.
then that means there is no socialized medicine
Shall not be infringed
> While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
> that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
> 2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>
> So far the Republican lineup looks like a bunch of clowns...and a
> couple of monkeys thrown in for good measure.
So what's your point?
> Five Republican straw polls and five different winners...that tells
> us that the patients are running the conservative asylum.
>
> Can't the GOP find even ONE decent candidate?
> Looks like America will be voting Obama in 2012.
>
> TMT
Did you run that joke past Leno?
Too_Many_Tools
> While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
> that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
> 2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>
> So far the Republican lineup looks like a bunch of clowns...and a
> couple of monkeys thrown in for good measure.
>
> us that the patients are running the conservative asylum.
>
> Can't the GOP find even ONE decent candidate?
>
>
> TMT
Republican candidate worthy of my vote, I will vote for him or her.
So...do you have one and why should I vote for him/her?
TMT
de...@dudu.org
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>> Nope. Just use the same ones all educated people do, you ignorant
>> dolt.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>
>So what exact product do roads produce?
transportation. We've been over this. Industry includes production
of services, as well as goods, (ie "the service industry). The
service here is providing for safe transportion infrastructure and
it's the government that owns the means of production, therefore....
>
>Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes your
>whole socialism speel.
>
>Oh, but that's right you would have us ignore that which contradicts your
>claims.
nonsense, exceptions don't invalidate a rule or definition. Never
have in anything. Earth science included.
>
>I will simply note that having a public road system is a LONG way from the
>definition of socialism you've cited.
>
nonsense, it's exactly what I explained. The government owns the
means of production of the service called transporation
infrastructure.
de...@dudu.org
wrote:
>Scout wrote:
>
>>
>> So what exact product do roads produce?
>
>What product does health care produce?
>Does that mean socialized medicine is not possible.
>
service is healthcare. Who provides that service determines the type
of system either socialist or capitalist.
>>
>> Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes your
>> whole socialism speel.
>
>Does that mean as long as somebody gets private health care
>then that means there is no socialized medicine
privatized services and production. It's not really that hard to
understand. Nothing anywhere says there must be total government
ownership of everything in socialism. That's communism. Socialism
exists in mixed systems.
Too_Many_Tools
>
> - Show quoted text -
So Frank...who do you like for a Presidental candidate?
TMT
Gray Guest
b612-bf6...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>
Convicted child molestors aren't allowed to vote, so no.
--
Words of wisdom
What does not kill you... probably didn't cause enough tissue damage.
Benny Fishhole
<No_email...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>Too_Many_Tools <too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:a3f7b058-e295-488e-
>b612-bf6...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>>
>>
>
>Convicted child molestors aren't allowed to vote, so no.
When was TMT actually convicted? I thouught he was the one his
mmommies molested
Gray Guest
news:g855879ktag971tul...@4ax.com:
Uno Hu
Actually Ron aul is the only person running for president whi IS worth
voting for.
(Obama is a neocon sell-out).
slate_leeper
>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:48:31 -0400, slate_leeper
><bycy...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
>><too_man...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
>>>that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
>>>2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>>
>>
>>For you, that would be a socialist. Be serious.
>>
>>
>Everybody is a socialist, moron. It's just that some of you aren't
>educated enough to know what that is.
Isn't it funny how some can only make a point by calling names?
Protect your civil rights!
Let the politicians know how you feel.
Join or donate to the NRA today!
http://membership.nrahq.org/default.asp?campaignid=XR014887
The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotle
http://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/arms-and-the-greeks.htm
Frank Bello
Too_Many_Tools
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:13:43 GMT, Deep Dudu wrote:
> >On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 07:48:31 -0400, slate_leeper
> ><bycy-r...@spamex.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 00:42:04 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
> >><too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
> >>>that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
> >>>2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>
> >>For you, that would be a socialist. Be serious.
>
> >Everybody is a socialist, moron. It's just that some of you aren't
> >educated enough to know what that is.
>
> Isn't it funny how some can only make a point by calling names?
>
> Protect your civil rights!
> Let the politicians know how you feel.
>
> The true measure of a people's freedom is whether they are armed or not. - Aristotlehttp://www.davekopel.com/2a/Foreign/arms-and-the-greeks.htm- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
that any conservative should be able to answer.
So far we have had just ONE response..a name but no reason why I
should vote for him.
I also note that my question is very timely...Axelrod just yesterday
went on record saying that the Republicans have no one candidate and
will be beaten by Obama because of their disorganization and poor
offerings.
TMT
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
What would he have done differently than Obama if he had been elected
in 2008?
TMT
steady...@yahoo.com
<lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> In article <a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>> If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
> for a straw.
the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office. The
world banking system collapsed because of "loop holes" in the
financial markets. Banks were allowed to invest in securities and high
risk credit swaps. When the real estate market collapsed hedge funds
and large institutional holders of credit swaps were hurt badly .
Personally, I thought George Bush did a great job as president. I did
not vote for Obama but, to be fair it is a tough time to be president.
Personally, I don't know why anyone would want the job.
Obama will be re-elected if the Republicans base there whole strategy
on "the defense of marriage" or "return to family values" nonsense.
Rick Perry was lambasted in the debates for requiring vaccination for
HPV. Is this really going to be an issue that the republicans think
will be a winner in 2012? I hope not. I admire the Speaker of the
House John Boehner. I think he has provided a solid no nonsense
approach to getting our country moving again. Obama should have faced
the music and got off the "raise the taxes" approach to economic
revitalization. If Obama plans on raising taxes, he will be defeated
in 2012. I hope he has a change of heart on taxes. We must cut the
size of government. Hopefully we can work together and cut the
excessive spending. We have a spending problem. Not a tax problem.
Gray Guest
11f718...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
you're not up to the job, don't ask for it.
Flint
> On Sep 27, 1:29 am, "Wisconsin Welfare Union Worker"
> <lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In article<a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
>> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Too_Many_Tools<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> While I still approve of Obama's handling
>>
>> If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
>> for a straw.
>
> the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office. The
> world banking system collapsed because of "loop holes" in the
> financial markets. Banks were allowed to invest in securities and high
> risk credit swaps. When the real estate market collapsed hedge funds
> and large institutional holders of credit swaps were hurt badly .
> Personally, I thought George Bush did a great job as president. I did
> not vote for Obama but, to be fair it is a tough time to be president.
> Personally, I don't know why anyone would want the job.
> Obama will be re-elected if the Republicans base there whole strategy
> on "the defense of marriage" or "return to family values" nonsense.
radar next to the economy right now.
> Rick Perry was lambasted in the debates for requiring vaccination for
> HPV. Is this really going to be an issue that the republicans think
> will be a winner in 2012? I hope not.
election is going to be a referendum on Obama more than anything - and
it >won't< be Rick Perry.
Personally, after the Florida debate, I'm leaning towards Cain. I
like his message and non-political posturing. That, and I liked his
answer to one of the most important questions in that debate (the last
question), and that was 'of the 12 on stage, who would you pick as a
running mate?'. Cain said 'Newt Gingrich'. THAT'S a ticket I could
get behind for two reasons: 1> the man is intelligent, and has the
brains to pick the best qualified running mate, and 2> would take
Obama's race-baiting campaign henchmn off at their legs by taking the
race-card right out of the equation. Of course, I'd prefer to see a
Gingrich vs Obama debate, but I'd settle for Gingrich bitch slapping
Biden around for a bit, even if only comic relief...
> ... I admire the Speaker of the
> approach to getting our country moving again. Obama should have faced
> the music and got off the "raise the taxes" approach to economic
> revitalization. If Obama plans on raising taxes, he will be defeated
> in 2012. I hope he has a change of heart on taxes. We must cut the
> size of government. Hopefully we can work together and cut the
> excessive spending. We have a spending problem. Not a tax problem.
MFB
Flint
nothing - he >applied< for the job.
--
MFB
tomalock
mentioned anit shit.
Someone mentioned yesterday on a podcast about Jessie Ventura running
with Ron Paul (let's see if I can quote a person right) "Fucking hell,
don't get me started. Mass stupidity, and being reminded of it, sends me
straight to drugs."
Pretty much says my thoughts on that, but to be honest they would think
twice about killing Paul cause Jessie would be prez. and I'm not sure I
want him as a prez. well not yet atleast.
Scout
<steady...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:62018bcd-dcbd-45f5...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> <lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> In article <a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
>> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>
>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > While I still approve of Obama's handling
>>
>> If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
>> for a straw.
>
> the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office.
Are you suggesting that Obama was so ignorant and incompetent that he was
unaware of what he was in for?
One more reason why someone else should be have been run under the
Democratic ticket.
Scout
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:95t487dl0h10ns3ff...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 19:58:31 -0400, "Scout"
> <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>> Nope. Just use the same ones all educated people do, you ignorant
>>> dolt.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
>>
>>So what exact product do roads produce?
>
> transportation.
No, Cars, trucks, buses, etc produce transportation. Roads just kind of sit
there.
> We've been over this.
Yep, and you still don't have a clue.
> Industry includes production
> of services, as well as goods, (ie "the service industry). The
> service here is providing for safe transportion infrastructure and
> it's the government that owns the means of production, therefore....
So explain private roads......I mean you claim the government owns all the
roads.
Hell, explain MY road. You know the public road that I own, but the
government maintains.
Further owning one small piece doesn't constitute socialism by the
definition you posted.
>>Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes your
>>whole socialism speel.
>>
>>Oh, but that's right you would have us ignore that which contradicts your
>>claims.
>
> nonsense, exceptions don't invalidate a rule or definition. Never
> have in anything. Earth science included.
Right, the government owns the entire planet.....
We need not consider any exceptions to that which would invalidate that
assertion.
That is the principle you are suggesting.
Scout
<de...@dudu.org> wrote in message
news:f3u487humd1q47t5r...@4ax.com...
> wrote:
>
>>Scout wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what exact product do roads produce?
>>
>>What product does health care produce?
>>Does that mean socialized medicine is not possible.
>>
> Goods AND SERVICES. ie. "the service industry". Of course here the
> service is healthcare. Who provides that service determines the type
> of system either socialist or capitalist.
>
>>>
>>> Further, given the private roads that exist, that pretty much spikes
>>> your
>>> whole socialism speel.
>>
>>Does that mean as long as somebody gets private health care
>>then that means there is no socialized medicine
>
> We lived in a mixed system, again. We have both socialized and
> privatized services and production.
"nonsense, exceptions don't invalidate a rule or definition."
definition that we're not a socialistic society.
Now, are you going to denounce your own statement, and if so which one?
RD Sandman
Utah. Of course, neither one will be in the final hunt, so I will start
looking at third party candidates.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
..against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...
Colonel Jake
"Impeached President Clinton! why do you think the Senate
didn't follow suit? because nobody in the Senate wanted
Al Gore to be the next President!!!..."
AHEM
<I just hate making myself laugh>
Jeff M
It's hard for me to imagine who a viable third party or no-party
candidate might be, and how they could gear up to any chance of a
successful campaign in sufficient time. Self-funded billionaire
campaigns have a dismal track record. Got any ideas about who might run
third, or at least who you'd like to see run third?
jim
Scout wrote:
>
> So a few exceptions, by your own statement, does NOT invalidate the rule or
> definition that we're not a socialistic society.
RD Sandman
news:j60a6o$5qd$1...@dont-email.me:
Scout
"RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9F6EADB47...@216.196.121.131...
> news:j60a6o$5qd$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>>
>>
>> <steady...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:62018bcd-dcbd-45f5...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com..
>> .
>>> On Sep 27, 1:29 am, "Wisconsin Welfare Union Worker"
>>> <lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> In article <a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
>>>> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>>>
>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > While I still approve of Obama's handling
>>>>
>>>> If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
>>>> for a straw.
>>>
>>> the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Are you suggesting that Obama was so ignorant and incompetent that he
>> was unaware of what he was in for?
>>
>> One more reason why someone else should be have been run under the
>> Democratic ticket.
>>
>>
>
> Betcha' Hillary knew. ;)
get things done.
She would have gotten things done, I'm not sure they would have been the
things I preferred, and I'm sure she and her friends would have benefited
greatly from them, but she at least would have gotten them done and have
been decisive in doing them.
That last one alone would have been worth something ,since wishy-washy Obama
has left industry uncertain of what to expect and thus hesitant to make any
moves.
tomalock
>
> When the House!,
> "Impeached President Clinton! why do you think the Senate didn't follow
> suit? because nobody in the Senate wanted Al Gore to be the next
> President!!!..."
>
accident looking for a place to happen.
Scout
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:JImdnVxcFMLRKB7T...@bright.net...
don't, but rather they are mandating that you buy something they have no
Constitutional authority to require.
Now, if you are suggesting socialized medicine in which the government
control doctors, hospitals and all that, then that again, would be a
different issue that what we have concerning roads.
See, right now, the government owns most of the roads, however the
transportation industry isn't roads. It's roads, cars, trucks, semis, vans,
SUVs, buses, and all the rest. (Won't even get into other forms of
transportation. ) So it's not really comparable. It's like the government
owning the hospital, but virtually everyone engaged in providing the health
care in that hospital does so as a private individual, firm, group, etc
rather than as a government employee, or under government direction and
control.
Dudu is suggesting that because government owns a hospital, despite all the
private doctors, medical services, etc, that somehow *poof* that magically
turns everything that occurs within the hospital into socialized medicine.
It doesn't.
They simply own the building. What goes on inside is almost exclusively
private enterprise.....just like on our roads.
The government owns the roads, but almost everything else occurring on the
roads is private enterprise. Hence, it's not socialism.
The "transportation industry" is primarily private enterprise.
That the government owns some parts of the industry it doesn't alter that
enough to cause the industry to be defined as socialism.
Just as owning the hospital isn't enough to resort to call the private
practices going on inside, socialized medicine.
For the INDUSTRY to be socialized requires the government to overwhelmingly
own and control every aspect of that industry. Raw materials,
infrastructure, equipment, etc. That's not the case with the transportation
industry, and simply owning roads doesn't change that enough to meet the
requirements of the definition.
Benny Fishhole
on the back porch of the White House.
http://tinyurl.com/3rwx4mf
Colonel Jake
> fix it" and while he is trying really hard I don't think that he can.
> Sometimes, things are just so broken that they cannot be fixed.
Well then?
"Maybe (if it's broken), he needs to
Man-Up and tell us that it is broken beyond repair!!!..."
(and alert us Americans to do some kind of Survival-Strategy)
*instead of him just LYING to everybody*
(if that really is the case)
I can sure!,
"Take the truth a lot better, than a Bold-Face-Lie!!!..."
(and it needs to be done soon, not when he's leaving Office)
Gray Guest
@blackhelicopter.databasix.com:
to those 2 phonies.
Scout
"Deucalion" <som...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9ut7875a76rlt5hfu...@4ax.com...
> fix it" and while he is trying really hard I don't think that he can.
> Sometimes, things are just so broken that they cannot be fixed.
like he's trying hard, because he seems to duck out at all the wrong times,
and refuses to take a stand when needed.
Shall not be infringed
> On 9/28/2011 9:46 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:03:00 -0400, Flint<age...@section31.org>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 9/28/2011 5:37 PM, Gray Guest wrote:
> >>> 11f718363...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com:
committee" work around the congressional stalemate.
That should fix everything.
tomalock
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:03:00 -0400, Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
>
> it" and while he is trying really hard I don't think that he can.
> Sometimes, things are just so broken that they cannot be fixed.
means) and he doesn't have the ability to fix anything with instructions
included. He spends/gives away money like it's coming from a bottomless
pit.
Yea he trying alright, maybe he should have had Eric Holder sell the drug
cartels even more guns and yes Obama knew all about it. Oh yea how many
different versions did they say about killing a man that had been dead
for a few years? The asswipe was groomed for that job, a job to run this
country into the ground even faster than the others have.
tomalock
USA. When you do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights you no
longer have a USA, you have Soviet Russia, you have Nazi Germany, etc..
tomalock
> I would have to question whether he is really trying hard, or just
> looking like he's trying hard, because he seems to duck out at all the
> wrong times, and refuses to take a stand when needed.
tomalock
Separately they are just half-assed, together they are a full ass.
Flint
> If you are looking for an argument from me on that assertion, you have
> picked the wrong person. He's trying real hard, but he is
> incompetent. I want Sarah Palin to win the next election. That
> should grease the skids.
Nooooooooooooooooo! I like Sarah Palin too, but she's not right for
the job.
--
MFB
Flint
Obama can ill afford to even show a sign of any 'cracks' at this point
in his reelection campaign. Replacing Biden now would do him more
harm simply because of the 'bad optics' in doing so - and we all know
how preoccupied this Pres is over his optics.
--
MFB
Too_Many_Tools
> While I still approve of Obama's handling of the mountain of crapola
> that Bush left him in 2008, I am open to considering a Republican in
> 2012 IF a suitable candidate can be found.
>
> So far the Republican lineup looks like a bunch of clowns...and a
> couple of monkeys thrown in for good measure.
>
> Five Republican straw polls and five different winners...that tells
> us that the patients are running the conservative asylum.
>
> Can't the GOP find even ONE decent candidate?
>
> Looks like America will be voting Obama in 2012.
>
> TMT
I am still waiting for suggestions as to which Republican candidate is
worth voting for.
Quite amazing so many conservatives have so many opinions on so many
issues except for the one that really matters.
But not surprising...five straw polls and five different so called
"winners".
Perhaps the Republicans should let "Dancing with the Stars" choose
their candidate.
TMT
Gray Guest
news:j617m0$ns5$1...@dont-email.me:
important things and an out for himself look on life.
Gray Guest
dnVRiuNZf_RnTn...@neonova.net:
Ray Keller
"tomalock" wrote in message
news:oq-dnVViuNb4_RnT...@neonova.net...
Nah...
You would suddenly have a large number of dead leftards that tried it.
RoseBud
<e0a94951-6ed4-44f4...@v9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/blog/ralph-naders-grand-alliance/
Ralph Naderąs Grand Alliance
Progressives find hope‹in Ron Paul.
By Michael Tracey
September 28, 2011
Itąs no secret that Ralph Nader has held the Democratic Party
establishment in low regard for decades now: the marginally more
palatable alternative in an ugly duopoly, he claims, is still quite
ugly. But lately Naderąs disdain has reached a new high. łItąs gotten so
bad,˛ he tells me, łthat you can actually say a Republican
president‹with a Democratic Senate‹would produce less bad results than
the present situation. Thatąs how bollixed stuff has gone.˛
Not that he was ever particularly optimistic about the Obama
administration, especially its potential to make headway on curtailing
corporate welfare, now Naderąs signature policy objective. But in that,
as with so many aspects of Obamaąs presidency, the adjectives
łdisappointing˛ or łinadequate˛ donąt even begin to capture the depths
of progressive disillusionment. Looking ahead to the 2012 presidential
race, one might assume that Nader has little to be cheerful about.
Yet he says there is one candidate who sticks out‹who even gives him
hope: Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
[1]That might sound counterintuitive. Nader, of course, is known as a
stalwart of the independent left, having first gained notoriety for his
1960s campaign to impose greater regulatory requirements on automakers‹a
policy act that would seem to contravene the libertarian understanding
of justified governmental power. So I had to ask: how could he profess
hope in Ron Paul, who almost certainly would have opposed the very
regulations on which Nader built his career?
łLook at the latitude,˛ Nader says, referring to the potential for
cooperation between libertarians and the left. łMilitary budget, foreign
wars, empire, Patriot Act, corporate welfare‹for starters. When you add
those all up, thatąs a foundational convergence. Progressives should do
so good.˛
I thought Iąd bring up the subject of Ron Paul with Nader after seeing
the two jointly interviewed on Fox Business Channel in January. Nader
had caught me off guard when he identified an emergent left-libertarian
alliance as łtodayąs most exciting new political dynamic.˛ It was easy
to foresee objections that the left might raise: if progressives are in
favor of expanding the welfare state, how well can they really get along
with folks who go around quoting the likes of Hayek and Rothbard?
łThatąs strategic sabotage,˛ Nader responds, sharply. łItąs an
intellectual indulgence. Š If theyąre on your side, and you donąt
compromise your positions, what do you care who they quote? Franklin
Delano Roosevelt sided with Stalin against Hitler. Not to draw that
analogy, Iąm just saying‹why did he side with Stalin? Because Stalin
went along with everything FDR wanted.˛
There may be an insurmountable impasse between the camps on
social-safety-net spending. łBut,˛ Nader says, łyou could get together
on corporate entitlements, subsidies, handouts, giveaways, bailouts. Ron
Paul is dead set against all that. So are a lot of
libertarian-conservatives. In fact, itąs almost a mark of being a
libertarian-conservative‹in contrast to being a
corporatist-conservative.˛
łDo you read all these right-wing theoreticians?˛ he goes on. łAlmost
every one of them warned about excessive corporate concentration. Hayek
did, [Frank] Meyer did, even Adam Smith did in his own way.˛ He leaves
the mechanics of a left-libertarian political coalition to be sussed out
later.
If the issues around which progressives and libertarians can coalesce, I
ask Nader, are the most intractable, deeply entrenched problems, is he
proposing that such a coalition would be more tenable than the one
currently cobbling together the Democratic Party, with its many Blue
Dogs and neoliberals?
łExactly,˛ Nader says. łLibertarians like Ron Paul are on our side on
civil liberties. Theyąre on our side against the military-industrial
complex. Theyąre on our side against Wall Street. Theyąre on our side
for investor rights. Thatąs a foundational convergence,˛ he exhorts.
łItąs not just itty-bitty stuff.˛
Nader cites opposition to łthe self-defeating, boomeranging drug war˛ as
another source of common ground, in the face of both partiesą
indifference‹with the scant exceptions of a few House Democrats who
favor decriminalizing marijuana‹to drug prohibitionąs many ills. Ron
Pauląs rejection of the very notion that personal drug use should be a
criminal offense is something that has resonated with younger
supporters, often catalyzing their first moment of political
consciousness.
łThis is one place where conservatives and liberals can get together,˛
Paul tells me. łBecause itąs sort of a nullification approach‹a statesą
rights approach.˛ California attempted to legalize marijuana outright
via ballot initiative łbecause they have millions and millions of people
who are using it, yet the federal governmentąs position‹Obamaąs
position‹is still to go after people even if itąs being used for
medicinal reasons, and putting sick people in jail.˛
łBut of course,˛ Paul goes on, łthe conservatives are very weak on
statesą rights when it comes to marijuana, which I find rather ironic.
Why donąt they just stick to principle and say, ŚWell, weąre for statesą
rights. Let the states do this.ą But no, they come down hard and say,
ŚWe need a federal lawą.˛ He sounds exasperated. łI think both sides
should work harder at being consistent.˛
Some critics allege that Paul himself has proven inconsistent on statesą
rights when it comes to the Defense of Marriage Act, which created
federal criteria for the recognition of marital unions. Campaign
literature distributed by the Paul campaign, under the header łBarack
Obamaąs Assault on Marriage,˛ asserts that the administration has shown
ła profound lack of respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law˛ by
no longer defending one of DOMAąs provisions in federal court. łAs
President,˛ the literature reads, łDr. Paul would enforce the Defense of
Marriage Act, stopping Big Government in Washington, D.C. from forcing
its definition of marriage on the states.˛
The flyerąs aggressive tone suggests it may have been written with an
eye towards appealing to Evangelical voters. In our interview, Paul
offers a nuanced position. He wasnąt in Congress in 1996 when DOMA was
approved, but says he łprobably˛ would have voted for it. łLooking
back,˛ Paul tells me, łI believed it protected the states over the
federal governmentąs dictates.˛
How sharp is the divide on social issues between progressives and Pauląs
more conservative supporters? I ask for his opinion on the central role
religion has seemingly taken in the Republican presidential contest,
something that has distressed progressives and libertarians alike. Texas
Governor Rick Perry preceded the announcement of his bid with a massive
Evangelical prayer rally in Houston, just miles from Pauląs
congressional district.
łIt certainly is his judgment call,˛ Paul says of Perryąs decision to
convene a stadium-sized worship event. łThereąs nothing that says he
should not do it. But whether itąs the wisest thing to do? For me, I
would consider it unwise.˛
Paul is typically demure about his own belief in Christianity‹willing to
speak about it when prompted, but never ostentatious. łIt might be the
way I was raised. We werenąt ever taught to carry religion on our
sleeves.˛ He references New Testament admonitions against going łout on
the sidewalk˛ to łmake a grandstand.˛ łYouąre supposed to go quietly
into your closet to pray,˛ Paul says, łand not be demonstrating in any
particular way. So I think I have followed that more than others.˛
I ask him at what point journalists should be entitled to press
candidates on their personal doctrinal views. Ordinarily, Paul says,
itąs inappropriate. łBut if you start using religion precisely to gain
political advantage,˛ he adds, łthen I think itąs much fairer to ask
those questions.˛
Nader takes a grim view of Perry, who polls indicate is the Republican
frontrunner. łItąs easy to say he may self-destruct, but heąs starting
to get some of that Reagan teflon. The Republican Party is going to
self-destruct with Perry. I donąt think heąs like Reagan. Heąs too cruel
and vicious.˛
There are nascent movements underway to bring disaffected progressives
into Ron Pauląs fold. A new organization called Blue Republican,
advertised on the Huffington Post and elsewhere, urges Democrats to
pledge their support for Paul. While Nader isnąt willing to endorse
Pauląs candidacy at this point, during our interview his praise grew
increasingly effusive. łRon Paul has always been anti-corporate,
anti-Federal Reserve, anti-big banks, anti-bailouts,˛ Nader says. łI
mean, they view him in the same way they view me on a lot of these
issues. Did you see the latest poll? Heąs like two points behind Obama.˛
łThatąs where the hope comes from,˛ Nader continues. łBecause the left
will reach out. I mean, theyąre already reaching out. They want as many
allies as possible. Itąs the right-wing that is being split, and thatąs
historically been the case‹the corporatists make sure authentic
conservatives are vectored in other directions. Theyąre vectored on the
social religious issues, abortion, more recently on raising the debt
limit. ŚKeep going after the libs,ą the corporatists say. Because
otherwise, authentic conservatives may develop a cooperative effort with
the Ślibsą on other issues, which are our issues,˛ he concludes. łThe
big issues.˛
Michael Tracey is a writer based in New York. His work has appeared in
The Nation, Reason, Mother Jones, and other publications.
--
Dan Clore
--
Karma, What a concept!
Ray Keller
"Flint" wrote in message news:j620fr$c8l$1...@dont-email.me...
--
MFB
=============================================================
Governor Sarah Palin’s Accomplishments that garnished her a whopping 92%
approval rating:
Energy Independence, Development, and Environmental Stewardship
*Governor Palin’s cornerstone accomplishment is AGIA (Alaska Gasline
Inducement Act). During the Palin administration, TransCanada and Exxon
formed an alliance to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the Lower
48. Under Governor Palin’s governance, the project was expanded and revised
from what previous governors had proposed with an open policy process for
the Alaskan people. More progress was made on this effort than in the
previous 30 years. This is the largest private sector infrastructure project
in North American history and helps put us on the path to energy
independence.
*Governor Palin’s administration opened up drilling for oil and natural gas
at Pt. Thompson for the first time in decades.
*Governor Palin created the Alaska’s Petroleum Integrity Office to oversee
all aspects of energy development and to make sure oilfield equipment was
safe to operate and a Climate Change Subcabinet to comprehensively and
honestly evaluate climate change.
Fiscal Conservatism
*Governor Palin reduced earmark requests for the state of Alaska by 80%
during her administration, requesting only earmarks that would benefit the
country as a whole.
* Governor Palin reduced spending in her budget for Fiscal Year 2010 by more
than one billion dollars from the previous governor’s Fiscal Year 2007
budget, a 9.5% real reduction in spending. Her FY2010 budget was $10.57
billion compared to Governor Murkowski’s FY2007 budget of nearly $11.7
billion. At the same time, she fulfilled her campaign promise to forward
fund education, allowing districts greater flexibility and predictability in
their planning.
*Governor Palin opposed much of the “stimulus”, wanting only to accept 55%
of the money allocated to Alaska, specifically only dollars dedicated to
infrastructure [projects. Although the Alaskan legislature ultimately
overturned her veto, she stood firm on her commitment to help Alaska to
become more self-sufficient while not adding to not add to the skyrocketing
national debt.
* Governor Palin invested $5 billion in state savings.
Walking the Walk on Fiscal Responsibility
*Governor Palin sold the private jet purchased by the previous governor. She
state it was an unnecessary financial burden on the state and was unable to
land on many of the state’s landing strips.
* To cut costs that would be incurred by continuing to use a personal driver
like previous governors, the governor drove herself from Wasilla to her
office in Anchorage. She also dismissed the governor’s personal chef
stationed in Juneau, Alaska’s capital.
* Governor Palin accepted less state per diem for herself and her family
than her predecessors even though she had a larger family.
10th Amendment Advocacy/Promotion of State Constitution
*Showing that she is a strong supporter of the 10th amendment, Governor
Palin advocated for the sovereignty of the state of Alaska.
*Governor Palin’s administration sued the federal government for placing the
polar bear on the endangered species list, as this restriction affected
energy development which would increase energy costs.
*A Constitutionalist, Governor Palin signed Alaska’s Clear and Equitable
Share (ACES) bill into law. The Alaska constitution states that the Alaskan
people own the oil and other resources. This law ensures that the “owners”,
the people of Alaska, receive a clear and equitable share of oil profits.
National Defense/Veterans
*Governor Palin supported ground-based missile defense Ft Greely and other
Alaskan Bases around to protect America from America’s enemies. She
criticized the Obama administration for cuts that they made to this national
defense system.
*Governor Palin, with Senators Murkowski and Begich, fought for retirement
benefits from the federal government that were due to the Alaska Territorial
Guard members who fought during World War II. These benefits were eventually
rewarded to these veterans by the federal government.
* Governor Palin visited Alaskan soldiers in Kosovo and Kuwait.
Transparency/Anti-Corruption
*Governor Palin signed bipartisan ethics reform legislation into law that
helped to hold both the legislative and executive branches accountable.
*Governor Palin put the state checkbook online, allowing all constituents to
see how state money was being spent.
Health Care
*Governor Palin introduced health care transparency legislation which aimed
at putting information in the hands of consumers about cost and quality of
health care as a way to make health care consumer driven and accessible.
Sanctity and Dignity of All Life
* Governor Palin strongly supported both parental consent and parental
notification legislation.
*Governor Palin increased educational funding for special needs’ children.
*Governor Palin implemented the Senior Benefits Program to support low
income seniors.
Positions Held while Governor
* Chairman of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.
*Vice Chair of the National Governors Association Natural Resource
Committee.
* She served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission, which regulates
Alaska’s most valuable non-renewable resources: oil and gas. She was elected
by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. In
this role, she worked with local, state and federal officials to promote
solutions to the needs of Alaska’s communities.
She exposed legal violations and conflicts of interest of Alaska Republican
leaders, including the former state Attorney General and the State GOP
Chairman (who was also an Oil & Gas Commissioner), who was doing work for
the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with a sensitive e-mail.
Several went to jail.
Governor Palin signed several pieces of legislation and resolutions during
July 2009. They were:
•SB-125: Encourage aerospace development in AK
•SB-177: Extend sunset for sport fishing guides and address harvest data
collection
•Pro-energy development and missile defense resolutions
HJR-27: Alaska a Sovereign State
HJR-25: Hydro-Electric a Renewable Resource
HJR-28: Oppose Federal Restriction on Oil and Gas Development
HJR-12: Support Missile Defense System
•SB-88: Power cost equalization
•Defending Second Amendment rights.
SB-201: Extends Concealed Carry Permit Expiration to 5 Years from Birthday
HJR-17: Urges Congress not to pass HR-45.The federal legislation would put
burdensome licensing and registration controls on individual gun owners.
SJR-10: Urges Congress to pass S-371. The legislation was to ensure that
citizens of each state who are licensed or authorized by their home state to
carry a concealed weapon, could do so in another state as long as they
comply with the laws of that state.
SJR-3: The resolution expresses support to Congress for repealing the ban on
carrying a firearm on National Park Service lands.
•SB-3 Requiring information sharing between two agencies.
•HRJ-19 Supports requirement of escort for loaded tankers traversing Prince
William Sound.
•The Governor appointed 29 people to boards, commissions and councils and
made three judicial appointments between July 6, 2009 and July 26, 2009.
Governor Palin’s total appointments for 2009 was123, including 116 to
boards, commissions and councils, five judicial appointments, one
legislative and one attorney general. Governor Palin averaged one
appointment every 1.67 days during 2009.
•The Governor vetoed $28.6 million in stimulus money that would have
involved federal interference with the state of Alaska.
Governor Palin signed bills removing experience caps on teacher’s salaries
and extending boat safety programs.
Governor Palin signed legislation that gave struggling charter schools a
one-year grace period to increase enrollments or integrate with other
charter schools. She also signed legislation that authorizes Alaska “to
enroll in the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military
Children.”
Governor Palin signed legislation granting birth certificates for stillborn
babies
Governor Palin signed legislation authorizing the state to fund retirement
benefits for Alaska Territorial Guard veterans. The federal government
ceased funding benefits on April 1, 2009
Governor Palin signed legislation safeguarding student loans
Sarah Palin was Commander of the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is the first
line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile
Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the first line of defense
unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on
permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units in the United States. As
governor of Alaska, Palin was briefed on highly classified military issues,
homeland security, and counterterrorism daily.
Governor Palin was the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force
(ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s
counterterrorism plans.
pyotr filipivich
+0000 (UTC) typed in misc.survivalism the following:
>dnVRiuNZf_RnTn...@neonova.net:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 03:44:59 -0400, Scout wrote:
>>
>>> I would have to question whether he is really trying hard, or just
>>> looking like he's trying hard, because he seems to duck out at all the
>>> wrong times, and refuses to take a stand when needed.
>>
>> About like what Bush did when asked questions about Katrina?
>>
>
>Go back to your bong asshole.
- like tomalock - the fact that they believe that President Bush did
something, gives them carte blanche to do even worse.
Did Bush "steal" the 2000 election (of course he did.) so massive
vote fraud in 2004 to steal the Washington Governor's election is
totally understandable.
Bush was president when the Democrats controlled Congress had a
deficit of 500 billion, so of course it is perfectly acceptable for a
Democrat Congress under a Democrat President to have a deficit of 1500
billion (for the years that they actually passed a budget.)
Did Bush set up the TSA? Then it is acceptable to sexual assault
toddlers and women under the new and improved guidelines.
--
pyotr filipivich
"If Eric Holder gets indicted in Operation Fast & Furious,
should he get a civilian trial?" The Iowahawk
F. George McDuffee
And this relates to metal working how?
Any Republican candidate that you would consider acceptable
would be a RINO [Republican In Name Only] and not a "real"
Republican like Taft or Goldwater.
It is crystal clear from the rapidly increasing governmental
debts and imminent default, rapidly increasing current
accounts trade debt, and high un(der) employment, and in
many other areas such as finance/banking, the Republic is
"on the wrong track" and headed over the cliff.
FWIW -- The lesser of two evils is still an evil, and if the
major parties again offer us a "choice" between
(operationally) bumbling idiots and/or corporate stooges, I
will refuse to vote or make any financial contributions.
--
Unka' George
"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"
-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"
RD Sandman
news:DYWdnYWNi5OvLB7T...@giganews.com:
> On 9/28/2011 6:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> Flint<age...@section31.org> wrote in news:j605gg$2pq$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>> <lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article<a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
>>>>> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> While I still approve of Obama's handling
>>>>>
>>>>> for a straw.
>>>>
>>>> the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office.
The
>>>> world banking system collapsed because of "loop holes" in the
>>>> financial markets. Banks were allowed to invest in securities and
high
>>>> risk credit swaps. When the real estate market collapsed hedge funds
>>>> and large institutional holders of credit swaps were hurt badly .
>>>> Personally, I thought George Bush did a great job as president. I
did
>>>> not vote for Obama but, to be fair it is a tough time to be
president.
>>>> Personally, I don't know why anyone would want the job.
>>>> Obama will be re-elected if the Republicans base there whole
strategy
>>>> on "the defense of marriage" or "return to family values" nonsense.
>>>
>>> radar next to the economy right now.
>>>
>>>
>>>
for
>>>> HPV. Is this really going to be an issue that the republicans think
>>>> will be a winner in 2012? I hope not.
>>>
>>> election is going to be a referendum on Obama more than anything -
and
>>> it>won't< be Rick Perry.
>>>
>>> like his message and non-political posturing.
>>
>
> I could see myself eventually being persuaded to vote for Huntsman.
> It's hard for me to imagine who a viable third party or no-party
> candidate might be, and how they could gear up to any chance of a
> successful campaign in sufficient time.
I have voted in every election since the Nixon-Kennedy debates and have
no intention of stopping now. I also have not voted for any candidate
simply because I didn't like his opponent. My vote is a personal thing
and I won't give it to any candidate I don't like.
Self-funded billionaire
> campaigns have a dismal track record. Got any ideas about who might
run
> third, or at least who you'd like to see run third?
Not at this point. But I know that I currently won't vote for Obama (I
disagree with some of his policies and I think he is a weak executive...
Excellent speaker but a weak exec) and I don't like either of the two
front runners for the Republican nomination. I disagree with Perry and
he has not looked good in the debates and Romney is too wishy washy and
has been running for president for over 5 years and still has not
developed much traction.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
WINE - Does not make you FAT....it makes you LEAN....
..against tables, chairs, floors, walls and ugly people...
Repubs Lost Unpaid Wars
>
> So far the Republican lineup looks like a bunch of clowns...
RD Sandman
news:j60fa6$o9$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>
> "RD Sandman" <rdsandman@comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9F6EADB47...@216.196.121.131...
>> "Scout" <me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in
>> news:j60a6o$5qd$1...@dont-email.me:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <steady...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:62018bcd-dcbd-45f5...@c1g2000yql.googlegroups.com
>>> .. .
>>>> <lazy....@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> In article <a3f7b058-e295-488e-b612-
>>>>> bf6069454...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > While I still approve of Obama's handling
>>>>>
>>>>> If Obama had diarrhea and you were walking behind him, you'd ask
>>>>> for a straw.
>>>>
>>>> the fact is that Obama got handed a raw deal when he took office.
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting that Obama was so ignorant and incompetent that
>>> he was unaware of what he was in for?
>>>
>>> One more reason why someone else should be have been run under the
>>> Democratic ticket.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Betcha' Hillary knew. ;)
>
> Yep, much as I disliked and distrusted her.....she DID seem to know
> how to get things done.
>
> She would have gotten things done, I'm not sure they would have been
> the things I preferred, and I'm sure she and her friends would have
> benefited greatly from them, but she at least would have gotten them
> done and have been decisive in doing them.
>
> That last one alone would have been worth something ,since wishy-washy
> Obama has left industry uncertain of what to expect and thus hesitant
> to make any moves.
Pretty much agree with most of what you posted.
RD Sandman
news:8a39871tce70moq6e...@4ax.com:
> most qualified person for the job. I'm voting Libertarian again if
> she isn't on the ticket.
>
I like Sarah for a lot of things......being president isn't one of them.
Perhaps I could use her on a cold night camping out in the woods.
RD Sandman
news:fh39879thr6j23c9t...@4ax.com:
> next election. I think that his age alone will be enough for Obama to
> consider another running mate.
And I would bet that he will.
Flint
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 10:48:19 -0400, Flint<age...@section31.org>
> wrote:
>
> She's the
> most qualified person for the job.
right now???
> I'm voting Libertarian again if
> she isn't on the ticket.
Constitution Party last time around because I couldn't bring myself to
swing a lever for McCain any more than I could for Obama.
I like what Palin has done to shake up the political landscape, but as
for presidential material, I just see voting for her as being little
more than an exercise in proving Einstein's insanity principle to be
correct. I mean, if I felt Obama was lacking experience and
qualifications for the job, how can I possibly expect a different
result voting for Palin? I'd vote for Bachman before Palin, and
haven't ruled her out, although Cain's rise in the polls looks rather
promising, especially since Gingrich's poll numbers have been markedly
improving as well.
--
MFB
tomalock
> picked the wrong person. He's trying real hard, but he is incompetent.
> I want Sarah Palin to win the next election. That should grease the
> skids.
maybe as a democrat.
tomalock
Hear Yogi fresh meat!
Flint
> A ticket to more screwing and making things worse, those motherfucker you
> mentioned anit shit.
>
> Someone mentioned yesterday on a podcast about Jessie Ventura running
> with Ron Paul (let's see if I can quote a person right) "Fucking hell,
> don't get me started. Mass stupidity, and being reminded of it, sends me
> straight to drugs."
> Pretty much says my thoughts on that, but to be honest they would think
> twice about killing Paul cause Jessie would be prez. and I'm not sure I
> want him as a prez. well not yet atleast.
As I said before, there's a lot about Ron Paul I really do like. I
think he could easily beat Obama - he just can't win the GOP nod,
largely because of his dismissive view regarding the threat of Iran.
That's about the only real thing I have against Paul. Other than
that, I pretty much agree with him on everything else.
Perry and Romney just don't convince me they're right for the job.
Romney may change that, although I think Perry is toast.
Personally, my favorites at this point are Gingrich and Santorum, but
Santorum can't win either, and Gingrich is questionable although his
poll numbers have improved markedly as of late.
Bachman??? I like her - I really do, but somehow she strikes me as
only a bit more viable than Palin, but her debate performances haven't
really done much to convince me she is the ideal candidate, and I fear
she will go down in something of a "Perry-esque" manner sooner or
later as the field narrows.
--
MFB
tomalock
>
> Sarah Palin was Commander of the Alaska National Guard. Alaska is the >
> first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The
> 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the
> first line of defense unit that protects the entire nation from
> ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other
> Guard units in the United States. As governor of Alaska, Palin was
> briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and
> counterterrorism daily.
>
> Governor Palin was the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense
> Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland
> Security’s counterterrorism plans.
>
tomalock
> her out, although Cain's rise in the polls looks rather promising,
> especially since Gingrich's poll numbers have been markedly improving as
> well.
happens.