Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Growing Conviction
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Tad Perry
Feb 9, 2012, 10:57:53 PM2/9/12
to
I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political suicide
by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
including Jewish people, who he has also alienated with his foreign policy?
How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with decisions like
making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that includes
contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception out there
anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
Yesterday, I was only really entertaining this thought, but today I'm more
or less convinced: he doesn't care what voters think because it isn't up the
voters anymore and he *knows* it. He has no fear. He can burn any bridge.
He *is* the Manchurian candidate. (Or should we call him "the Indonesian
candidate.")
If true, I hope someone, somehow can blow the lid off this fraud being
perpetrated on the people of the USA. Let's catch him red-handed, try him
for treason, and hang him from a tree in the public square. (If and only if,
it's proven true, mind you.)
tvp
completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political suicide
by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
including Jewish people, who he has also alienated with his foreign policy?
How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with decisions like
making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that includes
contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception out there
anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
Yesterday, I was only really entertaining this thought, but today I'm more
or less convinced: he doesn't care what voters think because it isn't up the
voters anymore and he *knows* it. He has no fear. He can burn any bridge.
He *is* the Manchurian candidate. (Or should we call him "the Indonesian
candidate.")
If true, I hope someone, somehow can blow the lid off this fraud being
perpetrated on the people of the USA. Let's catch him red-handed, try him
for treason, and hang him from a tree in the public square. (If and only if,
it's proven true, mind you.)
tvp
Iceman
Feb 9, 2012, 11:17:25 PM2/9/12
to
"Tad Perry" <tadp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jh24k0$v8n$1...@dont-email.me...
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of
> the Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> including Jewish people, who he has also alienated with his foreign
> policy? How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with
> decisions like making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that
> includes contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception
> out there anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
You wrongly assume that Obama will lose more votes from hardline Catholics
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of
> the Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> including Jewish people, who he has also alienated with his foreign
> policy? How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with
> decisions like making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that
> includes contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception
> out there anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
than he will gain from women concerned about contraception. How many
hardline Catholics were voting for him anyway?
Clave
Feb 9, 2012, 11:54:54 PM2/9/12
to
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote...
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
Except he isn't.
Jim
ChrisRobin
Feb 10, 2012, 1:47:16 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9 2012 10:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
Absolutely indisputable.
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political suicide
> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> including Jewish people, who he has also alienated with his foreign policy?
> How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with decisions like
> making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that includes
> contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception out there
> anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
advocated by church aristocracy. True hardcore Catholics are a dying
breed. And Obama hasn't alienated Jewish support at all – average American
Jewish voters are much less critical of his policies than the hardliner
Jewish politicos in D.C. Those AIPAC assholes are never satisfied.
> Yesterday, I was only really entertaining this thought, but today I'm more
> or less convinced: he doesn't care what voters think because it isn't up the
> voters anymore and he *knows* it. He has no fear. He can burn any bridge.
today's sham of a mortgage fraud settlement. No chance he loses the next
election. Zero.
> He *is* the Manchurian candidate. (Or should we call him "the Indonesian
> candidate.")
>
> If true, I hope someone, somehow can blow the lid off this fraud being
> perpetrated on the people of the USA. Let's catch him red-handed, try him
> for treason, and hang him from a tree in the public square. (If and only if,
> it's proven true, mind you.)
Complete capture of government by monied corporate interests. Hanging him
does no good, because the next guy will be just as bad (or worse).
That said, you are exactly correct in concluding that voting is a
pointless exercise. Just another mindless diversion to keep the idiot
peasants occupied. Welcome to the new normal.
----
Tad Perry
Feb 10, 2012, 1:47:25 AM2/10/12
to
"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
news:3o1Zq.1584$hJ4...@newsfe20.iad...
In that case, we'll spare him.
tvp
news:3o1Zq.1584$hJ4...@newsfe20.iad...
tvp
Tad Perry
Feb 10, 2012, 1:57:39 AM2/10/12
to
"Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jh25oh$559$1...@dont-email.me...
It's a fair question. Catholics are not really so much like Protestants in
terms of a tendency to lean extremely right. Also, I think that he will lose
almost universal support among most Christians, not just the hardliner
Catholics. I believe that the number of people who say they believe in some
sort of Christianity still hovers around 50% of the total population and
half of those are women, so it's not like all women will support him and
make up for it. That's why I think it would in fact be difficult to get
enough votes to win legitimately if one were to alienate practically all
Christians and Jews, especially if they organized to "get out the vote."
Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd tell
any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't care and
just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or not. To me,
it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose. Or maybe he's
just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on a book tour.
tvp
news:jh25oh$559$1...@dont-email.me...
terms of a tendency to lean extremely right. Also, I think that he will lose
almost universal support among most Christians, not just the hardliner
Catholics. I believe that the number of people who say they believe in some
sort of Christianity still hovers around 50% of the total population and
half of those are women, so it's not like all women will support him and
make up for it. That's why I think it would in fact be difficult to get
enough votes to win legitimately if one were to alienate practically all
Christians and Jews, especially if they organized to "get out the vote."
Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd tell
any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't care and
just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or not. To me,
it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose. Or maybe he's
just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on a book tour.
tvp
Clave
Feb 10, 2012, 2:14:11 AM2/10/12
to
"Tad Perry" <tadp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jh2ejt$4jf$1...@dont-email.me...
Jim
bratt
Feb 10, 2012, 8:10:42 AM2/10/12
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
________________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Feb 10, 2012, 9:49:00 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
You're right , he is caving as we speak. And he will cave some more
before it's over.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/
> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
before it's over.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-for-religious-organizations-on-contraception-rule/
Dave the Clueless
Feb 10, 2012, 12:58:45 PM2/10/12
to
anything he has to do to get re-elected. None. He'll suck any dick he has
to for four more years in the White House, just like every other
politician would.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
_______________________________________________________________________
Alim Nassor
Feb 10, 2012, 1:05:28 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 11:58 am, "Dave the Clueless" <a987...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
more sticktoitiveness. He really didn't give much of a fuck if he
pissed off half the country.
wrote:
> On Feb 10 2012 10:49 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > > "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:jh24k0$v8n$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > > > I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> > > > completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> > > > also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> > > > population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> > > > So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> > > > suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote...
>
> > > Except he isn't.
>
> > > Jim
>
> > You're right , he is caving as we speak. And he will cave some more
> > before it's over.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/white-house-to-announce-...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 9, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > > "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:jh24k0$v8n$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> > > > I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> > > > completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> > > > also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> > > > population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> > > > So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> > > > suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote...
>
> > > Except he isn't.
>
> > > Jim
>
> > You're right , he is caving as we speak. And he will cave some more
> > before it's over.
>
>
> Because like any other politician he has no moral or ethical objection to
> anything he has to do to get re-elected. None. He'll suck any dick he has
> to for four more years in the White House, just like every other
> politician would.
>
> -------
> Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
Can't really argue with that too much, but Bush did seem to have a lot
> Because like any other politician he has no moral or ethical objection to
> anything he has to do to get re-elected. None. He'll suck any dick he has
> to for four more years in the White House, just like every other
> politician would.
>
> -------
> Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
more sticktoitiveness. He really didn't give much of a fuck if he
pissed off half the country.
Clave
Feb 10, 2012, 1:25:07 PM2/10/12
to
"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:433defc2-d4f8-4ca9...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
The effective policy remains intact -- I give not two shits whose pocket it
comes out of, and if making the insurance companies pay restores the
Catholics' phony sense of piety and self-righteous superiority, that's fine
with me.
Jim
news:433defc2-d4f8-4ca9...@t30g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 9, 10:54 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jh24k0$v8n$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
>> > completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
>> > also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
>> > population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>>
>> > So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
>> > suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote...
>>
>> Except he isn't.
>
> You're right , he is caving as we speak...
>> "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:jh24k0$v8n$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> > I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
>> > completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
>> > also remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
>> > population and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>>
>> > So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
>> > suicide by alienating the entire Catholic vote...
>>
>> Except he isn't.
>
The effective policy remains intact -- I give not two shits whose pocket it
comes out of, and if making the insurance companies pay restores the
Catholics' phony sense of piety and self-righteous superiority, that's fine
with me.
Jim
Alim Nassor
Feb 10, 2012, 1:42:15 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 12:25 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Whew, I was worried there for a moment
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Dave the Clueless
Feb 10, 2012, 1:57:02 PM2/10/12
to
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
Clave
Feb 10, 2012, 2:02:59 PM2/10/12
to
"Dave the Clueless" <a98...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:us5g09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Here's your headline:
Religious Conservatives Get what They Want -- Still Piss and Moan
news:us5g09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Religious Conservatives Get what They Want -- Still Piss and Moan
mo_ntresor
Feb 10, 2012, 3:19:06 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9 2012 11:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> > You wrongly assume that Obama will lose more votes from hardline Catholics
> > than he will gain from women concerned about contraception. How many
> > hardline Catholics were voting for him anyway?
>
> It's a fair question. Catholics are not really so much like Protestants in
> terms of a tendency to lean extremely right. Also, I think that he will lose
> almost universal support among most Christians, not just the hardliner
> Catholics. I believe that the number of people who say they believe in some
> sort of Christianity still hovers around 50% of the total population and
> half of those are women, so it's not like all women will support him and
> make up for it. That's why I think it would in fact be difficult to get
> enough votes to win legitimately if one were to alienate practically all
> Christians and Jews, especially if they organized to "get out the vote."
>
> Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd tell
> any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't care and
> just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or not. To me,
> it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose. Or maybe he's
> just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on a book tour.
it's not a "fair question"; it's a perfect example of why lawyer whores
> > You wrongly assume that Obama will lose more votes from hardline Catholics
> > than he will gain from women concerned about contraception. How many
> > hardline Catholics were voting for him anyway?
>
> It's a fair question. Catholics are not really so much like Protestants in
> terms of a tendency to lean extremely right. Also, I think that he will lose
> almost universal support among most Christians, not just the hardliner
> Catholics. I believe that the number of people who say they believe in some
> sort of Christianity still hovers around 50% of the total population and
> half of those are women, so it's not like all women will support him and
> make up for it. That's why I think it would in fact be difficult to get
> enough votes to win legitimately if one were to alienate practically all
> Christians and Jews, especially if they organized to "get out the vote."
>
> Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd tell
> any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't care and
> just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or not. To me,
> it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose. Or maybe he's
> just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on a book tour.
will continue destroying the nation if we don't put a stop to it. only an
unprincipled jury deceiver would give a shit what constituent was greater;
a leader would do what he believed was right regardless.
obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how much
ACTION has anybody seen?
mo_ntresor
---
mo_ntresor
Feb 10, 2012, 3:29:01 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10 2012 11:57 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> > The effective policy remains intact -- I give not two shits whose pocket
it
> > comes out of, and if making the insurance companies pay restores the
> > Catholics' phony sense of piety and self-righteous superiority, that's
fine
> > with me.
>
> > The effective policy remains intact -- I give not two shits whose pocket
it
> > comes out of, and if making the insurance companies pay restores the
> > Catholics' phony sense of piety and self-righteous superiority, that's
fine
> > with me.
>
> There's a shocker, Clave is OK with an Obama policy move. Alert the press.
that's how it works. you sit in front of your tv and computer all day
waiting for your leader to tell you what to believe.
mo_ntresor
--------
Clave
Feb 10, 2012, 4:00:04 PM2/10/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d9bg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
You think I need to be told that I value women's health more than I value
the sanctimony of dried-up old men who can't stand the idea of not being
able to tell other people how to live?
Project away, boys.
Jim
news:d9bg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
the sanctimony of dried-up old men who can't stand the idea of not being
able to tell other people how to live?
Project away, boys.
Jim
mo_ntresor
Feb 10, 2012, 4:14:23 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10 2012 1:29 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> > There's a shocker, Clave is OK with an Obama policy move. Alert the press.
>
> that's how it works. you sit in front of your tv and computer all day
> waiting for your leader to tell you what to believe.
clave defended both views, but that's not even the true comedy. i bet my
> > There's a shocker, Clave is OK with an Obama policy move. Alert the press.
>
> that's how it works. you sit in front of your tv and computer all day
> waiting for your leader to tell you what to believe.
left nut he shows up and actually suggests the law forcing religious
institutions to ascribe is actually defending their liberty and freedoms.
LOL
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
Clave
Feb 10, 2012, 4:22:29 PM2/10/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fudg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Feb 10 2012 1:29 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> > There's a shocker, Clave is OK with an Obama policy move. Alert the
>> > press.
>>
>> that's how it works. you sit in front of your tv and computer all day
>> waiting for your leader to tell you what to believe.
>
> clave defended both views...
>
>> > There's a shocker, Clave is OK with an Obama policy move. Alert the
>> > press.
>>
>> that's how it works. you sit in front of your tv and computer all day
>> waiting for your leader to tell you what to believe.
>
Yes, the view that I support women's health, AND the view that I support
women's health.
It's amazing how confidently you can say such stupid things.
Jim
VegasJerry
Feb 10, 2012, 5:14:52 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political suicide
> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> including Jewish people,
He's not. Once again you underestimate him. You might note that, at least
> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I also
> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the population
> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>
> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political suicide
> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> including Jewish people,
with the Catholics, 92% of the women take the pill. Think hesl lost their
vote?
Keep underestimatind a black guy, with a funny name, that got a Harvard
law degree and got himself elected President of the United States. Then
see who get reelected...
Jerry
who he has also alienated with his foreign policy?
> How can he *possibly* afford to alienate all these votes with decisions like
> making Catholic organizations provide health insurance that includes
> contraception, when there are plenty of sources of contraception out there
> anyway? It's not like it's hard to get!"
>
> Yesterday, I was only really entertaining this thought, but today I'm more
> or less convinced: he doesn't care what voters think because it isn't up the
> voters anymore and he *knows* it. He has no fear. He can burn any bridge.
>
> He *is* the Manchurian candidate. (Or should we call him "the Indonesian
> candidate.")
>
> If true, I hope someone, somehow can blow the lid off this fraud being
> perpetrated on the people of the USA. Let's catch him red-handed, try him
> for treason, and hang him from a tree in the public square. (If and only if,
> it's proven true, mind you.)
>
> tvp
Tad Perry
Feb 10, 2012, 9:26:13 PM2/10/12
to
"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
ZERO chance Obama will lose. So if you thought I was expecting him to, you
misread something somewhere. I still think he's a dirty South Chicago
politician with mob ties and corrupt* as they come, but I don't
underestimate him.
*Over time the money politics in our political system has gotten to the
point where the corrupt has technically become completely legal when adorned
the correct way. So except for receiving stolen property from mob friends at
a high discount and getting massively advantageous land deals, I'm not sure
any actual criminal charge could actually ever be made to stick. However,
his way of political dealing can rightly be described as corrupt. Grease him
and he'll grease you back. It's all over the media. There's no denying it.
tvp
news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
>> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
>> also
>> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
>> population
>> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>>
>> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
>> suicide
>> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
>> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
>> including Jewish people,
>
> He's not. Once again you underestimate him. You might note that, at least
> with the Catholics, 92% of the women take the pill. Think hesl lost their
> vote?
>
> Keep underestimatind a black guy, with a funny name, that got a Harvard
> law degree and got himself elected President of the United States. Then
> see who get reelected...
I'm pretty much in agreement with Chris Robin at this point that there is
>
>> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
>> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
>> also
>> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
>> population
>> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
>>
>> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
>> suicide
>> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
>> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
>> including Jewish people,
>
> He's not. Once again you underestimate him. You might note that, at least
> with the Catholics, 92% of the women take the pill. Think hesl lost their
> vote?
>
> Keep underestimatind a black guy, with a funny name, that got a Harvard
> law degree and got himself elected President of the United States. Then
> see who get reelected...
ZERO chance Obama will lose. So if you thought I was expecting him to, you
misread something somewhere. I still think he's a dirty South Chicago
politician with mob ties and corrupt* as they come, but I don't
underestimate him.
*Over time the money politics in our political system has gotten to the
point where the corrupt has technically become completely legal when adorned
the correct way. So except for receiving stolen property from mob friends at
a high discount and getting massively advantageous land deals, I'm not sure
any actual criminal charge could actually ever be made to stick. However,
his way of political dealing can rightly be described as corrupt. Grease him
and he'll grease you back. It's all over the media. There's no denying it.
tvp
Iceman
Feb 10, 2012, 10:33:19 PM2/10/12
to
news:jh2f53$6f5$1...@dont-email.me...
80% of the population is "Christian", but many of them are only minimally
religious. Despite what the Catholic Church leaders say, the Amerian
Catholic population overall are actually similar to the general population
when it comes to social issues like abortion and gay marriage and birth
control coverage, and a majority of them favor the birth control mandate.
The Christian Right and their hardcore Catholic and Mormon counterparts are
at most 20% of the population, and probably less. And the country is
becoming less religious all the time.
Also consider that 99% of women of childbearing age use birth control, so
this will hit home for a lot of them. That's a good motivation to vote for
young women who otherwise would have been indifferent on an Obama-Romney
race.
> Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd
> tell any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't
> care and just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or
> not. To me, it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose.
> Or maybe he's just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on
> a book tour.
I don't think he's done a very good job as president, but giving the clowns
he's running against I think Michael Dukakis could win this election for the
Democrats.
religious. Despite what the Catholic Church leaders say, the Amerian
Catholic population overall are actually similar to the general population
when it comes to social issues like abortion and gay marriage and birth
control coverage, and a majority of them favor the birth control mandate.
The Christian Right and their hardcore Catholic and Mormon counterparts are
at most 20% of the population, and probably less. And the country is
becoming less religious all the time.
Also consider that 99% of women of childbearing age use birth control, so
this will hit home for a lot of them. That's a good motivation to vote for
young women who otherwise would have been indifferent on an Obama-Romney
race.
> Meanwhile, his modus operandi has changed from the last election. He'd
> tell any lie to any group to get their support. Now, he really doesn't
> care and just says it like it is whether these various groups like it or
> not. To me, it smells like confidence born from a knowledge he can't lose.
> Or maybe he's just resigned to giving up the presidency and wants to go on
> a book tour.
he's running against I think Michael Dukakis could win this election for the
Democrats.
Iceman
Feb 10, 2012, 10:42:40 PM2/10/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qmag09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Tad's post on the political aspects of the decision.
A real leader would call birth control non-negotiable and tell the Bishops
they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
> obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
> just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how much
> ACTION has anybody seen?
any better. He will say anything to anyone just to get elected, and if he
does get into office he will change positions daily based on polls.
VegasJerry
Feb 11, 2012, 10:05:19 AM2/11/12
to
On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> >> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> >> also
> >> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> >> population
> >> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
> >>
> >> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> >> suicide
> >> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
> >> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> >> including Jewish people,
> >
> > He's not. Once again you underestimate him. You might note that, at least
> > with the Catholics, 92% of the women take the pill. Think hesl lost their
> > vote?
> >
> > Keep underestimatind a black guy, with a funny name, that got a Harvard
> > law degree and got himself elected President of the United States. Then
> > see who get reelected...
>
> I'm pretty much in agreement with Chris Robin at this point that there is
> ZERO chance Obama will lose. So if you thought I was expecting him to, you
> misread something somewhere.
No, no. Once again it's the plural "you." And I also agree that a second
> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> I'm on record as firmly believing the second Bush Election of 2004 was
> >> completely rigged and that he did not legitimately win that election. I
> >> also
> >> remain amazed that this is not an openly accepted fact among the
> >> population
> >> and the media when it is pretty much indisputable.
> >>
> >> So, I'm sitting around wondering: "Why is Obama committing political
> >> suicide
> >> by alienating the entire Catholic vote, and potentially a lot of the
> >> Protestant vote, and the vote of anyone with strong religious beliefs,
> >> including Jewish people,
> >
> > He's not. Once again you underestimate him. You might note that, at least
> > with the Catholics, 92% of the women take the pill. Think hesl lost their
> > vote?
> >
> > Keep underestimatind a black guy, with a funny name, that got a Harvard
> > law degree and got himself elected President of the United States. Then
> > see who get reelected...
>
> I'm pretty much in agreement with Chris Robin at this point that there is
> ZERO chance Obama will lose. So if you thought I was expecting him to, you
> misread something somewhere.
term is lock.
> I still think he's a dirty South Chicago politician with mob ties and
corrupt*
> as they come, but I don't underestimate him.
any other politician. It's damn near become a requirement. You'll get the
occasional do-gooder that run for congress, but they're soon disillusioned
and don't rerun. You just can't compete with money and power without using
money and power.
> *Over time the money politics in our political system has gotten to the
> point where the corrupt has technically become completely legal when adorned
> the correct way. So except for receiving stolen property from mob friends at
> a high discount and getting massively advantageous land deals, I'm not sure
> any actual criminal charge could actually ever be made to stick. However,
> his way of political dealing can rightly be described as corrupt. Grease him
> and he'll grease you back. It's all over the media. There's no denying it.
>
> tvp
politicians.
Jerry 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
Tad Perry
Feb 11, 2012, 3:02:12 PM2/11/12
to
Tad Perry
Feb 11, 2012, 3:16:09 PM2/11/12
to
"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
whenever I bring this up about Obama, the ball always comes back over the
net at me with some variation on the theme: "All politicians are like that."
To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get. Bush
was another, but serving different interests. There may be a few that really
do want to overcome the corruption, but are suffering from "Mr. Deeds Goes
to Washington" syndrome. McCain may have played the game along with the rest
of them during his career, but I felt he was offering the voters an honest
chance to break the cycle when he promised he would not pass any legislation
containing earmarks. That could have been the beginning of the end, but now
we're in deep shit.
I don't like shrugging my shoulders and supporting somebody because "the
alternatives are all just as bad" especially when maybe they aren't *quite*
as bad.
tvp
mo_ntresor
Feb 11, 2012, 5:11:03 PM2/11/12
to
valedictorian in college, two years of service, harvard mba/jd (forgive
him), built an enterprise, profitable olympics, ran a liberal state as a
republican. he's fucking G_d of all creation as far as you're concerned.
mo_ntresor
-----
mo_ntresor
Feb 11, 2012, 5:08:28 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 10 2012 8:42 PM, Iceman wrote:
> > it's not a "fair question"; it's a perfect example of why lawyer whores
> > will continue destroying the nation if we don't put a stop to it. only an
> > unprincipled jury deceiver would give a shit what constituent was greater;
> > a leader would do what he believed was right regardless.
>
> Did I say anything about the morality involved? I was just responding to
> Tad's post on the political aspects of the decision.
>
> A real leader would call birth control non-negotiable and tell the Bishops
> they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
>
> > obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
> > just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how much
> > ACTION has anybody seen?
>
> I'm not defending Obama, but you are deluded if you really think Romney is
> any better. He will say anything to anyone just to get elected, and if he
> does get into office he will change positions daily based on polls.
social issues are for morons. romney will run financial matters better
> > it's not a "fair question"; it's a perfect example of why lawyer whores
> > will continue destroying the nation if we don't put a stop to it. only an
> > unprincipled jury deceiver would give a shit what constituent was greater;
> > a leader would do what he believed was right regardless.
>
> Did I say anything about the morality involved? I was just responding to
> Tad's post on the political aspects of the decision.
>
> A real leader would call birth control non-negotiable and tell the Bishops
> they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
>
> > obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
> > just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how much
> > ACTION has anybody seen?
>
> I'm not defending Obama, but you are deluded if you really think Romney is
> any better. He will say anything to anyone just to get elected, and if he
> does get into office he will change positions daily based on polls.
than any president in at least 80 years. obama's been the worst financial
steward in history. this election's easy for people with brains.
mo_ntresor
--------
Iceman
Feb 11, 2012, 6:29:47 PM2/11/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nk5j09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Romney himself has corrected this notion, saying that he was not."
-Wikipedia
> two years of service,
Yeah, being a missionary in France, which also conveniently got him out of
Vietnam!
>harvard mba/jd (forgive him),
Well, he did get an offer at BCG.
> built an enterprise,
Jon Corzine worked out great!
> profitable olympics,
Profitable only if you don't count all of the government money that poured
into it.
[T]he federal government's contributions, thanks to Mr. Romney, were also
immense. By the time the Games were over, about $342 million in federal
money to plan and stage the Winter Games had flowed into Utah, a record
outlay for the Olympics and nearly $50 million more in constant dollars than
was spent for the Atlanta Olympics, according to a report in 2001 by the
Government Accountability Office.
And much of that money was from earmarks, which Mr. Romney now often calls
politically motivated and wasteful. "These earmarks are embarrassing, and
they're embarrassing for my party as well as the other party," he said in
Marshalltown, Iowa, during a recent campaign swing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201250005
> ran a liberal state as a republican. he's fucking G_d of all creation as
> far as you're concerned.
prefers Santorum and Gingrich.
Iceman
Feb 11, 2012, 6:49:57 PM2/11/12
to
news:sf5j09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> romney will run financial matters better than any president in at least 80
> years.
We can reduce taxes, and keep military spending high, without making deep
cuts in Social Security and Medicare! I guarantee he won't achieve that.
> obama's been the worst financial steward in history.
George W. Bush has that distinction locked up.
> this election's easy for people with brains.
The Democrats have moved to the center, while the Republicans have gone off
the deep end. We don't have a real progressive alternative, but the choice
is clear.
> On Feb 10 2012 8:42 PM, Iceman wrote:
>
>> > it's not a "fair question"; it's a perfect example of why lawyer
>> > whores
>> > will continue destroying the nation if we don't put a stop to it. only
>> > an
>> > unprincipled jury deceiver would give a shit what constituent was
>> > greater;
>> > a leader would do what he believed was right regardless.
>>
>> Did I say anything about the morality involved? I was just responding to
>> Tad's post on the political aspects of the decision.
>>
>> A real leader would call birth control non-negotiable and tell the
>> Bishops
>> they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
>>
>> > obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
>> > just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how
>> > much
>> > ACTION has anybody seen?
>>
>> I'm not defending Obama, but you are deluded if you really think Romney
>> is
>> any better. He will say anything to anyone just to get elected, and if
>> he
>> does get into office he will change positions daily based on polls.
>
> social issues are for morons.
People say that until they are personally affected by them.
>
>> > it's not a "fair question"; it's a perfect example of why lawyer
>> > whores
>> > will continue destroying the nation if we don't put a stop to it. only
>> > an
>> > unprincipled jury deceiver would give a shit what constituent was
>> > greater;
>> > a leader would do what he believed was right regardless.
>>
>> Did I say anything about the morality involved? I was just responding to
>> Tad's post on the political aspects of the decision.
>>
>> A real leader would call birth control non-negotiable and tell the
>> Bishops
>> they have to follow the same laws as everyone else.
>>
>> > obama claimed to believe in a lot of "right" during his first campaign,
>> > just like he'll believe in a lot of bullshit this time around. how
>> > much
>> > ACTION has anybody seen?
>>
>> I'm not defending Obama, but you are deluded if you really think Romney
>> is
>> any better. He will say anything to anyone just to get elected, and if
>> he
>> does get into office he will change positions daily based on polls.
>
> social issues are for morons.
> romney will run financial matters better than any president in at least 80
> years.
cuts in Social Security and Medicare! I guarantee he won't achieve that.
> obama's been the worst financial steward in history.
> this election's easy for people with brains.
the deep end. We don't have a real progressive alternative, but the choice
is clear.
mo_ntresor
Feb 11, 2012, 9:25:49 PM2/11/12
to
masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
truly pathetic.
mo_ntresor
------
Beldin the Sorcerer
Feb 11, 2012, 11:41:01 PM2/11/12
to
news:jh6tjq$crl$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> And with all of that, much of the Republican primary electorate still
> prefers Santorum and Gingrich.
Sure, they're biased, bible thumping morons
> And with all of that, much of the Republican primary electorate still
> prefers Santorum and Gingrich.
>
Beldin the Sorcerer
Feb 12, 2012, 12:37:11 AM2/12/12
to
news:qmag09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
Mo, get the fuck out of here
You're supposed to represent the people, at least some of the time.
And you often lie to some of them, or hide views from some of them
You're supposed to represent the people, at least some of the time.
And you often lie to some of them, or hide views from some of them
Beldin the Sorcerer
Feb 12, 2012, 12:39:07 AM2/12/12
to
news:jh6upg$ifq$1...@dont-email.me...
That's a load of shit.
This is why I refuse to join a political party.
None of you partisan types can accept your guy can be a complete shit for
brains some of the time
>> this election's easy for people with brains.
>
>
> The Democrats have moved to the center, while the Republicans have gone
> off the deep end. We don't have a real progressive alternative, but the
> choice is clear.
That's a load of shit too.
The 'pubs are no further right than the last cycle, and the dems are just as
far left.
Defining center as "close to your own point of view" isn't reality
>
This is why I refuse to join a political party.
None of you partisan types can accept your guy can be a complete shit for
brains some of the time
>> this election's easy for people with brains.
>
>
> The Democrats have moved to the center, while the Republicans have gone
> off the deep end. We don't have a real progressive alternative, but the
> choice is clear.
The 'pubs are no further right than the last cycle, and the dems are just as
far left.
Defining center as "close to your own point of view" isn't reality
>
Frisbieinstein
Feb 12, 2012, 6:29:05 AM2/12/12
to
On Feb 10, 11:57 am, "Tad Perry" <tadpe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
Obama is possessed by the Devil. I have proof.
>
Obama is possessed by the Devil. I have proof.
Mossingen
Feb 12, 2012, 11:28:11 AM2/12/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nk5j09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> you and obama and ten others like you aren't fit to shine mitt's shoes.
> valedictorian in college, two years of service, harvard mba/jd (forgive
> him), built an enterprise, profitable olympics, ran a liberal state as a
> republican. he's fucking G_d of all creation as far as you're concerned.
Mormon code for draft dodging the Vietnam war in France. Romney is 64 and
spent the war in France chasing pussy while my father (who is 63) joined the
Army at 17 and ended up as an Army grunt in Vietnam. Rich guys with
connections go to France, poor people from Oklahoma go to Vietnam. That
sort of thing is not a deal-breaker for me, but it's irritating. I don't
see his "service" in France as a plus for him.
Although I think Romney is to be commended for his financial success, he was
a child of advantage who had the way prepared for him more than others.
It's like if George W. Bush or Donald Trump didn't succeed at something.
You'd wonder why. Romney still had to go out and actually do it, which is
impressive, but not as much as you seem to think.
Guys like Romney would use their power to help their even richer friends,
and he's show that will say anything to get elected. I don't think he's a
bad candidate, but take off the rose-colored glasses, man.
Mossingen
Feb 12, 2012, 11:33:13 AM2/12/12
to
"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dikj09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> you'll make excuses for anything. downplay any success that suits your
> masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
> truly pathetic.
Romney was born on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. He's not the
worst candidate, but you have it in your head that if he's President all the
country's financial problems will go away. You don't give Obama near enough
credit for staving off immediate financial collapse, and things are turing
around in the economy. Obama's plan might work, or appears to be working
although you don't like it.
Making money at Bain isn't the same as running the U.S. government. You
should check yourself when you find that you see only positives in a
candidate.
VegasJerry
Feb 12, 2012, 12:15:56 PM2/12/12
to
> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
broke). He took a chance when he decided to risk SEAL units and walk in on
Osama; rather than carpet-bomb the block. He really wanted to dodge the
PAC thing; but got forced into that. He's not really making a buck on
these things.
> Bush
> was another, but serving different interests. There may be a few that really
> do want to overcome the corruption, but are suffering from "Mr. Deeds Goes
> to Washington" syndrome. McCain may have played the game along with the rest
> of them during his career, but I felt he was offering the voters an honest
> chance to break the cycle when he promised he would not pass any legislation
> containing earmarks.
> That could have been the beginning of the end, but now
> we're in deep shit.
>
> I don't like shrugging my shoulders and supporting somebody because "the
> alternatives are all just as bad" especially when maybe they aren't *quite*
> as bad.
>
> tvp
can.
Jerry
____________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Feb 12, 2012, 12:45:06 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12 2012 9:33 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> > you'll make excuses for anything. downplay any success that suits your
> > masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
> > truly pathetic.
>
> Ann Richards was right (paraphrasing her joke about GWB): just because
> Romney was born on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. He's not the
> worst candidate, but you have it in your head that if he's President all the
> country's financial problems will go away. You don't give Obama near enough
> credit for staving off immediate financial collapse, and things are turing
> around in the economy. Obama's plan might work, or appears to be working
> although you don't like it.
>
> Making money at Bain isn't the same as running the U.S. government. You
> should check yourself when you find that you see only positives in a
> candidate.
back into the unthinking herd, jim. you can vote lawyer again!
> > you'll make excuses for anything. downplay any success that suits your
> > masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
> > truly pathetic.
>
> Ann Richards was right (paraphrasing her joke about GWB): just because
> Romney was born on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. He's not the
> worst candidate, but you have it in your head that if he's President all the
> country's financial problems will go away. You don't give Obama near enough
> credit for staving off immediate financial collapse, and things are turing
> around in the economy. Obama's plan might work, or appears to be working
> although you don't like it.
>
> Making money at Bain isn't the same as running the U.S. government. You
> should check yourself when you find that you see only positives in a
> candidate.
high school and college history will teach children that obama saved us
from bush's financial crisis, but my brain works. paulson (the major
hero) and bernanke (under bush) saved us from a depression produced by a
decade of washington corruption and new york banker self-dealing, and
unbridled stupidity. obama continued wisely, but dropped the ball with
auto, "green" energy, healthcare and union handouts. when the debt
spiraled, he ignored it, but thinking americans slapped his party back to
reality. did he learn the obvious lesson of the last decade, that debt
matters? NOPE. he learned he didn't manage the conversation, so guess
what he's doing now ...
mitt's in the bloomberg mold, professional success leading to real service
(not a professional politician whore like obama). he doesn't need the
money, and he cares about more than his own political ass. he's honest,
competent, and hard working with private and public successes (which
partisan dipshits disparage which should tell you something). one man
can't solve this government's problems immediately, but he's got a better
shot than anybody the nation's had the opportunity to vote for in a long
long time.
mo_ntresor
----
FL Turbo
Feb 12, 2012, 1:10:28 PM2/12/12
to
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:33:13 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:
>"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dikj09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
>
>> you'll make excuses for anything. downplay any success that suits your
>> masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
>> truly pathetic.
>
>
>Ann Richards was right (paraphrasing her joke about GWB): just because
>Romney was born on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. He's not the
>worst candidate, but you have it in your head that if he's President all the
>country's financial problems will go away. You don't give Obama near enough
>credit for staving off immediate financial collapse, and things are turing
>around in the economy. Obama's plan might work, or appears to be working
>although you don't like it.
>
Okay, Jerry
>Making money at Bain isn't the same as running the U.S. government. You
>should check yourself when you find that you see only positives in a
>candidate.
>
Well, that isn't me.
None of the candidates fit my ideal as the Conservative, but they will
have to do.
You can't go to war with the candidate you want, you have to go to war
with the candidate you have.
I'm firmly in the ABO (Anybody But Obama) faction.
Not that I'm partisan or nuthin'
As one Inet poster put it: "I'd vote for a shoe with a sock as a
running mate before I'd vote for Obama."
In the mirror image, Democrats have already proved their willingness
to do the same.
wrote:
>"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:dikj09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>
>
>> you'll make excuses for anything. downplay any success that suits your
>> masters; attribute any of their failings to the instructed others.
>> truly pathetic.
>
>
>Ann Richards was right (paraphrasing her joke about GWB): just because
>Romney was born on third base doesn't mean he hit a triple. He's not the
>worst candidate, but you have it in your head that if he's President all the
>country's financial problems will go away. You don't give Obama near enough
>credit for staving off immediate financial collapse, and things are turing
>around in the economy. Obama's plan might work, or appears to be working
>although you don't like it.
>
>Making money at Bain isn't the same as running the U.S. government. You
>should check yourself when you find that you see only positives in a
>candidate.
>
None of the candidates fit my ideal as the Conservative, but they will
have to do.
You can't go to war with the candidate you want, you have to go to war
with the candidate you have.
I'm firmly in the ABO (Anybody But Obama) faction.
Not that I'm partisan or nuthin'
As one Inet poster put it: "I'd vote for a shoe with a sock as a
running mate before I'd vote for Obama."
In the mirror image, Democrats have already proved their willingness
to do the same.
mo_ntresor
Feb 12, 2012, 1:26:57 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12 2012 9:28 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> > you and obama and ten others like you aren't fit to shine mitt's shoes.
> > valedictorian in college, two years of service, harvard mba/jd (forgive
> > him), built an enterprise, profitable olympics, ran a liberal state as a
> > republican. he's fucking G_d of all creation as far as you're concerned.
>
> Do you view any Republican candidate critically?
LMFAO!
> > you and obama and ten others like you aren't fit to shine mitt's shoes.
> > valedictorian in college, two years of service, harvard mba/jd (forgive
> > him), built an enterprise, profitable olympics, ran a liberal state as a
> > republican. he's fucking G_d of all creation as far as you're concerned.
>
> Do you view any Republican candidate critically?
i've already stated that i would only vote for paul or romney on the r
side this election. i voted third party tickets the last several
elections, but voted against stroger (democrat criminal and son of a
democrat criminal) as cook county commish (only other option was r). i've
ripped santorum's foreign and social policies to shreds. i've been the
group's loudest anti-newt critic starting many posts about his lobbying
corruption, abject hypocrisy, and unsuitability to lead. i ripped bush
and his spending endlessly. see, i'm not a partisan like you guys. i
don't invent idiot reasons to stick by "my guy" no matter how many times
he lies to my face. my soul's made of sterner stuff.
> Two years of service is
> Mormon code for draft dodging the Vietnam war in France. Romney is 64 and
> spent the war in France chasing pussy while my father (who is 63) joined the
> Army at 17 and ended up as an Army grunt in Vietnam. Rich guys with
> connections go to France, poor people from Oklahoma go to Vietnam. That
> sort of thing is not a deal-breaker for me, but it's irritating. I don't
> see his "service" in France as a plus for him.
byu. my dad served in vietnam, and my granddad served in ww2. neither
feels compelled to vote for a lying lawyer just because his skin's black.
> Although I think Romney is to be commended for his financial success, he was
> a child of advantage who had the way prepared for him more than others.
> It's like if George W. Bush or Donald Trump didn't succeed at something.
> You'd wonder why. Romney still had to go out and actually do it, which is
> impressive, but not as much as you seem to think.
yourself.
> Guys like Romney would use their power to help their even richer friends,
> and he's show that will say anything to get elected. I don't think he's a
> bad candidate, but take off the rose-colored glasses, man.
the rich. just more political nonsense. how much time and money did you
give to the disadvantaged this year and last? mitt gave more.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Feb 12, 2012, 1:43:08 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12, 10:26 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> there's nothing in romney's past that would suggest he'd favor the rich.
There is something in his present which suggests that he would favor
the rich. His tax plan, which would reduce tax revenues by $600
billion in 2015, while giving huge tax cuts to the rich and increasing
taxes on the working class. You really don't understand that
eliminating the estate and gift taxes favor the rich???
Here, numbnuts. Here is an analysis of Romney's tax plan --
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/02/07/how-romney-would-tax-us/
William Coleman (ramashiva)
wrote:
> there's nothing in romney's past that would suggest he'd favor the rich.
the rich. His tax plan, which would reduce tax revenues by $600
billion in 2015, while giving huge tax cuts to the rich and increasing
taxes on the working class. You really don't understand that
eliminating the estate and gift taxes favor the rich???
Here, numbnuts. Here is an analysis of Romney's tax plan --
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/02/07/how-romney-would-tax-us/
William Coleman (ramashiva)
mo_ntresor
Feb 12, 2012, 6:15:49 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 12 2012 11:43 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > there's nothing in romney's past that would suggest he'd favor the rich.
>
> There is something in his present which suggests that he would favor
> the rich. His tax plan, which would reduce tax revenues by $600
> billion in 2015, while giving huge tax cuts to the rich and increasing
> taxes on the working class. You really don't understand that
> eliminating the estate and gift taxes favor the rich???
>
> Here, numbnuts. Here is an analysis of Romney's tax plan --
>
>
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/02/07/how-romney-would-tax-us/
i know, we're going to tax the rich to balanced budgets and chocolate
> > there's nothing in romney's past that would suggest he'd favor the rich.
>
> There is something in his present which suggests that he would favor
> the rich. His tax plan, which would reduce tax revenues by $600
> billion in 2015, while giving huge tax cuts to the rich and increasing
> taxes on the working class. You really don't understand that
> eliminating the estate and gift taxes favor the rich???
>
> Here, numbnuts. Here is an analysis of Romney's tax plan --
>
>
http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/02/07/how-romney-would-tax-us/
paved roads. eliminating deductions and spending always creates howls.
taxing people who currently don't pay taxes does too. we need a leader
who can make hard choices this president whore wouldn't even consider.
mo_ntresor
_______________________________________________________________________
Tad Perry
Feb 12, 2012, 10:37:23 PM2/12/12
to
"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:cn8l09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Feb 11 2012 12:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
>> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
>
> Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
> healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
> broke).
I don't doubt that his intentions regarding healthcare were well meaning. My
>
>> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
>> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
>
> Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
> healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
> broke).
problem was with the budget-busting earmarks overflowing every single piece
of legislation. I really, really hate this stuff and want it stopped. Also,
I think some of the problems with the healthcare bill that did pass came
from seeking to please the pharmeceutical industry a bit too much.
> He took a chance when he decided to risk SEAL units and walk in on
> Osama; rather than carpet-bomb the block. He really wanted to dodge the
> PAC thing; but got forced into that. He's not really making a buck on
> these things.
fuck with an Obama-run government. In this respect, his total ruthlessness
comes to the fore as a positive.
>> Bush
>> was another, but serving different interests. There may be a few that
>> really
>> do want to overcome the corruption, but are suffering from "Mr. Deeds
>> Goes
>> to Washington" syndrome. McCain may have played the game along with the
>> rest
>> of them during his career, but I felt he was offering the voters an
>> honest
>> chance to break the cycle when he promised he would not pass any
>> legislation
>> containing earmarks.
>
> Agree. He tried campaign finance reform and look what it got him.
>
>
>> That could have been the beginning of the end, but now
>> we're in deep shit.
>>
>> I don't like shrugging my shoulders and supporting somebody because "the
>> alternatives are all just as bad" especially when maybe they aren't
>> *quite*
>> as bad.
>>
>> tvp
>
> Well, I'm voting for Obama because it looks like he's doing as good as he
> can.
Some people are anybody but Obama and others are anybody but Romney.
I'm anybody but Obama except Romney.
tvp
Pepe Papon
Feb 13, 2012, 4:15:57 AM2/13/12
to
still wouldn't negate the fact that his tax proposal favors the rich.
VegasJerry
Feb 13, 2012, 4:08:09 PM2/13/12
to
On Feb 12 2012 7:37 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:cn8l09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Feb 11 2012 12:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
> >> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
> >
> > Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
> > healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
> > broke).
>
> I don't doubt that his intentions regarding healthcare were well meaning.
I believe that was the original point.
> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:cn8l09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> > On Feb 11 2012 12:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> >> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
> >
> >> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like that.
> >> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
> >
> > Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
> > healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
> > broke).
>
> I don't doubt that his intentions regarding healthcare were well meaning.
> My problem was with the budget-busting earmarks overflowing every single
> piece of legislation.
> I really, really hate this stuff and want it stopped.
> Also, I think some of the problems with the healthcare bill that did pass
> came from seeking to please the pharmeceutical industry a bit too much.
negotiate prices with Pharmaceuticals"). Then, Obama had to deal with
their lobbyists and their power. I'm surprised he got what he did.
> > He took a chance when he decided to risk SEAL units and walk in on
> > Osama; rather than carpet-bomb the block. He really wanted to dodge the
> > PAC thing; but got forced into that. He's not really making a buck on
> > these things.
>
> On foreign policy, Obama has surprised me. He is GOOD a that, IMO. Do not
> fuck with an Obama-run government. In this respect, his total ruthlessness
> comes to the fore as a positive.
the least wrong."
If only there were some way to get campaign finance reform. The SCOTUS
sent us the wrong direction on that.
Jerry (looking for directions) 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
Tad Perry
Feb 13, 2012, 9:24:48 PM2/13/12
to
"VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pmao09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> On Feb 12 2012 7:37 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:cn8l09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 11 2012 12:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like
>> >> that.
>> >> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
>> >
>> > Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
>> > healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
>> > broke).
>>
>> I don't doubt that his intentions regarding healthcare were well meaning.
>
> I believe that was the original point.
>
>
>> My problem was with the budget-busting earmarks overflowing every single
>> piece of legislation.
>
> Yea, everybody was doing it.
>
>> I really, really hate this stuff and want it stopped.
>
> I thought it was stopped.
A damn has been erected temporarily but it keeps tyring to bust wide open
>
>> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:cn8l09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 11 2012 12:16 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:fmci09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> > On Feb 10 2012 6:26 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> "VegasJerry" <jer...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:sfhg09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> >> >> > On Feb 9 2012 7:57 PM, Tad Perry wrote:
>> >
>> >> To a greater or lesser degree, I'd have to agree that most are like
>> >> that.
>> >> But I think Obama is a pretty blatant example of how bad it can get.
>> >
>> > Really? I get the opposite. He stuck his neck out on trying to reform
>> > healthcare. He really didn't have to do that. (Other than it was going
>> > broke).
>>
>> I don't doubt that his intentions regarding healthcare were well meaning.
>
> I believe that was the original point.
>
>
>> My problem was with the budget-busting earmarks overflowing every single
>> piece of legislation.
>
> Yea, everybody was doing it.
>
>> I really, really hate this stuff and want it stopped.
>
> I thought it was stopped.
again.
So, essentially, I meant *permanently* stopped.
>> Some people are anybody but Obama and others are anybody but Romney.
>> I'm anybody but Obama except Romney.
>>
>> tvp
>
> I know what you mean. It's like a multiple choice test: "This one looks
> the least wrong."
>
> If only there were some way to get campaign finance reform. The SCOTUS
> sent us the wrong direction on that.
tvp
VegasJerry
Feb 14, 2012, 1:22:51 PM2/14/12
to
good and usefull. But as we all know, it's quickly corrputed.
Jerry
>
> >> Some people are anybody but Obama and others are anybody but Romney.
> >> I'm anybody but Obama except Romney.
> >>
> >> tvp
> >
> > I know what you mean. It's like a multiple choice test: "This one looks
> > the least wrong."
> >
> > If only there were some way to get campaign finance reform. The SCOTUS
> > sent us the wrong direction on that.
>
> That's exactly where I'm at with it.
>
> tvp
zox625
Feb 14, 2012, 2:56:35 PM2/14/12
to
and any tax plan that 'hurts the rich' must be right?
By what standard?
________________________________________________________________________
mo_ntresor
Feb 14, 2012, 8:05:25 PM2/14/12
to
On Feb 14 2012 12:56 PM, zox625 wrote:
> > A truly impressive dodge. All of the above could be true, and it
> > still wouldn't negate the fact that his tax proposal favors the rich.
>
> The premise being that any tax plan that 'favors the rich' must be wrong,
> and any tax plan that 'hurts the rich' must be right?
>
> By what standard?
50% don't pay federal income tax. clearly, "the rich" owe an additional
> > A truly impressive dodge. All of the above could be true, and it
> > still wouldn't negate the fact that his tax proposal favors the rich.
>
> The premise being that any tax plan that 'favors the rich' must be wrong,
> and any tax plan that 'hurts the rich' must be right?
>
> By what standard?
5%.
mo_ntresor
______________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
Feb 16, 2012, 4:33:59 AM2/16/12
to
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:56:35 -0800, "zox625" <a46...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:
By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
proposals all would accelerate this trend.
wrote:
greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
proposals all would accelerate this trend.
TruthSeeker
Feb 17, 2012, 9:40:11 PM2/17/12
to
Pepe Papon wrote:
> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
Would they, now? Then why does Wall Street give so much money to
> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
Democratic candidates? Why are so many of the uber-rich Democrats? How
did powerful Democrats who chaired the committees overseeing financial
matters get so rich?
The people who think that the evils in our government are found only in
the "other party" are so easily manipulated by the politicians.
Republicans are as corrupt and as much to blame as the Democrats.
--
TruthSeeker
RazzO
Feb 17, 2012, 11:09:14 PM2/17/12
to
weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
RazzO n' Vegas
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Pepe Papon
Feb 18, 2012, 3:10:30 AM2/18/12
to
On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:40:11 -0700, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
>> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
>> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
>
>
>Would they, now?
Um, yeah, they would.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
>> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
>> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
>
>
>Would they, now?
>Then why does Wall Street give so much money to
>Democratic candidates? Why are so many of the uber-rich Democrats? How
>did powerful Democrats who chaired the committees overseeing financial
>matters get so rich?
TruthSeeker
Feb 18, 2012, 12:46:54 PM2/18/12
to
cannot face the answers to them. Oh, and that they destroy your "it's
all the Republicans' fault."
It's not the tax code, Pepe, that creates or grows the wealth disparity.
The rich already pay by far most of the taxes, and they got richer anyway.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Feb 19, 2012, 1:46:39 AM2/19/12
to
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:46:54 -0700, TruthSeeker
>It's not the tax code, Pepe, that creates or grows the wealth disparity.
> The rich already pay by far most of the taxes, and they got richer anyway.
Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense
to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
nothing but red herrings.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:40:11 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
>>>> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
>>>> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
>>>
>>> Would they, now?
>>
>> Um, yeah, they would.
>>
>>> Then why does Wall Street give so much money to
>>> Democratic candidates? Why are so many of the uber-rich Democrats? How
>>> did powerful Democrats who chaired the committees overseeing financial
>>> matters get so rich?
>>
>> All irrelevant questions. Just look at their tax proposals.
>
>
>Of course you would claim that they are "irrelevant questions," as you
>cannot face the answers to them. Oh, and that they destroy your "it's
>all the Republicans' fault."
What crap. Look at the proposals. Scoreboard!
>Pepe Papon wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:40:11 -0700, TruthSeeker
>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the standard that the rich have been accumulating a greater and
>>>> greater proportion of the wealth in the US and that the Republican
>>>> proposals all would accelerate this trend.
>>>
>>> Would they, now?
>>
>> Um, yeah, they would.
>>
>>> Then why does Wall Street give so much money to
>>> Democratic candidates? Why are so many of the uber-rich Democrats? How
>>> did powerful Democrats who chaired the committees overseeing financial
>>> matters get so rich?
>>
>> All irrelevant questions. Just look at their tax proposals.
>
>
>Of course you would claim that they are "irrelevant questions," as you
>cannot face the answers to them. Oh, and that they destroy your "it's
>all the Republicans' fault."
>It's not the tax code, Pepe, that creates or grows the wealth disparity.
> The rich already pay by far most of the taxes, and they got richer anyway.
to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
nothing but red herrings.
da pickle
Feb 21, 2012, 7:29:38 AM2/21/12
to
they are right this minute?
Would you please present exactly how rich the rich can be and still not
need to be less rich ... in your opinion?
Pepe Papon
Feb 21, 2012, 7:21:56 PM2/21/12
to
>Would you please present exactly how rich the rich can be and still not
>need to be less rich ... in your opinion?
Alim Nassor
Feb 22, 2012, 12:38:25 AM2/22/12
to
On Feb 21, 6:21 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:29:38 -0600, da pickle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/19/2012 12:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:46:54 -0700, TruthSeeker
> >> <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 06:29:38 -0600, da pickle
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On 2/19/2012 12:46 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:46:54 -0700, TruthSeeker
>
> >>> Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:40:11 -0700, TruthSeeker
> >>>> <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >>> Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:40:11 -0700, TruthSeeker
da pickle
Feb 22, 2012, 9:20:42 AM2/22/12
to
On 2/21/2012 6:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense
>>> to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
>>> their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
>>> nothing but red herrings.
>>
>> Do you, Pepe, want a system where the rich cannot get any richer than
>> they are right this minute?
>
> As the question is worded, no.
Nothing you have ever posted supports that answer.
>>> Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense
>>> to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
>>> their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
>>> nothing but red herrings.
>>
>> Do you, Pepe, want a system where the rich cannot get any richer than
>> they are right this minute?
>
> As the question is worded, no.
>> Would you please present exactly how rich the rich can be and still not
>> need to be less rich ... in your opinion?
>
> Are you expecting an exact number?
Pepe Papon
Feb 22, 2012, 10:06:22 PM2/22/12
to
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:20:42 -0600, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/21/2012 6:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense
>>>> to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
>>>> their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
>>>> nothing but red herrings.
>>>
>>> Do you, Pepe, want a system where the rich cannot get any richer than
>>> they are right this minute?
>>
>> As the question is worded, no.
>
>Nothing you have ever posted supports that answer.
Because I've never posted anything that addresses the question, as you
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2/21/2012 6:21 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense
>>>> to say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase
>>>> their proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are
>>>> nothing but red herrings.
>>>
>>> Do you, Pepe, want a system where the rich cannot get any richer than
>>> they are right this minute?
>>
>> As the question is worded, no.
>
>Nothing you have ever posted supports that answer.
worded it.
>
>>> Would you please present exactly how rich the rich can be and still not
>>> need to be less rich ... in your opinion?
>>
>> Are you expecting an exact number?
>
>Some answer might be helpful.
didn't know better, I'd think you chose that wording intentionally to
make a reasonable answer impossible.
While we're at it, do you think there's any degree of wealth
concentration that should be considered a problem? Exactly how much?
da pickle
Feb 23, 2012, 8:05:43 AM2/23/12
to
"Of course it's the tax code, among other things. It's pure nonsense to
say that giving more tax breaks to the rich won't further increase their
proportion of the wealth. It defies logic. Your questions are nothing
but red herrings."
together in sentences such as those above.
I am trying to understand what you mean by "the rich" and why you are
talking about "giving more" whatever you mean by "tax breaks" to them.
Obviously, you believe that "the rich" have too much wealth. If you
would explain who they might be and how much is too much and how you
plan to make sure they have less than they have now, perhaps someone
might understand what you are trying to say.
It seems to me that you want the change the relationship between the
haves and the have nots. I am trying to decide what you mean by that if
that is what you mean. And if that is what you want to happen, how does
it happen. If that is not what you mean, what do you mean?
Pepe Papon
Feb 23, 2012, 9:58:49 PM2/23/12
to
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:05:43 -0600, da pickle
I think the quoted paragraph is self-explanatory, and that you're
being intentionally obtuse in pretending there's some sort of
mysterious, hidden meaning. I highly doubt, as you suggest, that
"someone" would have any trouble understanding what I'm trying to say.
It's rather shocking to me that, at this juncture, you're acting so
mystified about my meaning. Not only have I been expressing this
view for several years, but the issue has recently been receiving all
kinds of coverage in the media. There are articles about this topic
all over the web. Just Google "US wealth inequality", and you'll
have hundreds of articles you can choose from.
being intentionally obtuse in pretending there's some sort of
mysterious, hidden meaning. I highly doubt, as you suggest, that
"someone" would have any trouble understanding what I'm trying to say.
It's rather shocking to me that, at this juncture, you're acting so
mystified about my meaning. Not only have I been expressing this
view for several years, but the issue has recently been receiving all
kinds of coverage in the media. There are articles about this topic
all over the web. Just Google "US wealth inequality", and you'll
have hundreds of articles you can choose from.
BillB
Feb 24, 2012, 2:40:23 AM2/24/12
to
On 2/23/2012 6:58 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> It's rather shocking to me that, at this juncture, you're acting so
> mystified about my meaning.
Really?? He does this every time someone asks him an uncomfortable
> It's rather shocking to me that, at this juncture, you're acting so
> mystified about my meaning.
question. I'd be shocked if he ever answered such a question without
dancing and obfuscation.
da pickle
Feb 24, 2012, 9:53:52 AM2/24/12
to
true. Perhaps you should explain to Pepe what he is talking about. And
you might ask him to answer questions before posing his own.
Pepe Papon
Feb 24, 2012, 11:41:55 AM2/24/12
to
know what I meant when I said that giving more tax cuts to the rich
would increase their proportion of the wealth. He went as far as to
act as if those words were undecipherable.
da pickle
Feb 24, 2012, 12:44:48 PM2/24/12
to
"Pepe Papon"
> In this case, he wasn't asking a question. He was pretending not to
> know what I meant when I said that giving more tax cuts to the rich
> would increase their proportion of the wealth. He went as far as to
> act as if those words were undecipherable.
other words that you did not and do not seem to want to define in any
meaningful way.
That's OK, just post another non response and go about your business.
Pepe Papon
Feb 25, 2012, 12:59:53 AM2/25/12
to
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:44:48 -0600, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no
apam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon"
>
>> In this case, he wasn't asking a question. He was pretending not to
>> know what I meant when I said that giving more tax cuts to the rich
>> would increase their proportion of the wealth. He went as far as to
>> act as if those words were undecipherable.
>
>Actually, I wanted to know what you meant by "the "rich" and a couple of
>other words that you did not and do not seem to want to define in any
>meaningful way.
I must admit that I'm having a hard time imagining why you would need
apam)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Pepe Papon"
>
>> In this case, he wasn't asking a question. He was pretending not to
>> know what I meant when I said that giving more tax cuts to the rich
>> would increase their proportion of the wealth. He went as far as to
>> act as if those words were undecipherable.
>
>Actually, I wanted to know what you meant by "the "rich" and a couple of
>other words that you did not and do not seem to want to define in any
>meaningful way.
me to do such a thing.
>That's OK, just post another non response and go about your business.
0 new messages