well thank you Obama for your health care plan!

[n...@home.com]

our insurance
I'm so glad Obama care is supposed to lower our health insurance, ors
is going up over 26 dollars a pay period, and we have to change
companies with higher copays, and 90% coverage, (was 100% coverage)

so thank you obama for the lower insurance costs!

NOT

[Andy the]

The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it
anymore.

I have a good friend that owns a small business with about 125
employees. He keeps close tabs on the financial situation, Washington
D.C., etc. Studies it very closely. I complained to him about our rising
insurance costs and he said, "It's only going to get worse."

'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.

Andy aka Big Stinkie

[danin...@gmail.com]

Just the tip of the iceberg!

[n...@home.com]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

not to worry, Obama will win

Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.

[Steve]

Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment. Ironic that
Lawrence O'Donnell dismissed the political validity of the question
("how your private religion affects your public policy") that led to
that admission.

Now I have to continue the struggle in undecided land. I also think that
the media and pundits misrepresent the undecided as "low information"
voters. Some of us are very high information voters who are so on the
fence over the social policies being touted by the republicans, that we
are considering swallowing the social democracy pill and taking the
chance on suffering financially for a few extra years.

[n...@home.com]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:00:30 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>>
>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>
>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>
>
>Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment. Ironic that
>Lawrence O'Donnell dismissed the political validity of the question
>("how your private religion affects your public policy") that led to
>that admission.
>
>Now I have to continue the struggle in undecided land. I also think that

im not undecided, there are far more important issues right now, we
need financial security, Obama will not give us that period, end of
story.
and there is no way this country is going to stop abortions period,
not gonna happen, no matter who is in charge

but the left will tear this apart (and they should if they want to
win)

>the media and pundits misrepresent the undecided as "low information"
>voters. Some of us are very high information voters who are so on the
>fence over the social policies being touted by the republicans, that we
>are considering swallowing the social democracy pill and taking the
>chance on suffering financially for a few extra years.

again, no way will abortion ever get banned, and if anyone really
thinks it will, I think they are silly, I won't say stupid as this is
a very passionate subject for many, me, not so much so.

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:23:28 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:

>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On 10/11/2012 5:01 PM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>> our insurance
>>> I'm so glad Obama care is supposed to lower our health insurance, ors
>>> is going up over 26 dollars a pay period, and we have to change
>>> companies with higher copays, and 90% coverage, (was 100% coverage)
>>>
>>> so thank you obama for the lower insurance costs!
>>>
>>> NOT
>>>
>>
>>The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
>>pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
>>year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it
>>anymore.
>>
>>I have a good friend that owns a small business with about 125
>>employees. He keeps close tabs on the financial situation, Washington
>>D.C., etc. Studies it very closely. I complained to him about our rising
>>insurance costs and he said, "It's only going to get worse."
>>
>>'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>
>not to worry, Obama will win

Yer crystal ball needs a tune up.

>Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.

Not according to th' polls I've read this am, more Independants are
leaning towards Romney/Ryan after th' VP debate than Obama/Biden.
Abortion is *way* th' fuck down near th' bottom of th' priorities
list.

You may now finish pissin' in yer own Wheaties, heh, heh.

Snarl

[n...@home.com]

I guess I just know to many people that think abortion is birth
control, but I just listened to Dupree which usually seems to be
pretty straight forward and he is surprised at the polls right now as
well, it does seem like Romney is stil pulling away from obama

but lets see what happens over the next few days/week and see if the
obama team will destroy that independant thinking

[Rick Anderson]

NOT@ wrote in message news:t0gg78dilhi6lto2r...@4ax.com...

>^^^^

While I know that both of these Presidential idiots are... well, idiots,
and "abortion" is an semi-big issue for many, it has come to my attention
that Romney said that he would NOT sign any legislation one way or another
regarding that.
But then again, we do know that politicians are wonderful liars, born and
bred for just that task.
IMHO? I am PRO-choice, but against the Government funding for it.
(Funny that ALL Presidents have some kind of "ties" to England, the
Illuminati, and (GASP!) " Order of the Freemasons!"
Including Kevin Bacon and Porn legend John Holmes.

I am also PRO-CHOICE regarding helmet laws in all states. <---- ON TOPIC
'eh?
Meaning also, that if in my Car with a shit load of airbags in it, I should
STILL be able to wear a device that saves my cranium, should I so desire!
But I am not!
ANYBODY that is denied Protective HEAD/Body stuff is a retard!

One with a legal right to own a firearm in one state, should be able to have
the same RIGHTS in all the other 49.
After all, my driver's and marriage "license" is good to go EVERYWHERE!

Let's SIMPLIFY and ENFORCE the laws we already have, and NOT let these
"Politicians" ruin OUR lives by making more STUMP STUPID things that "WE
THE PEOPLE:" already understand. and you retards want to rip apart.


AH#49.
FUCK YOU if disagree with common decency or sense.

[B]

That's odd since its not in effect yet. Could it be the insurance companies
just gouging while the gouging's good. Could it be?

[B]

<n...@home.com> wrote:


> not to worry, Obama will win
>
> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.

That's what happens when you allow the Christian Right to hijack your
party. Moderate Reagan's turning in his grave.

[B]

Andy the <and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 10/11/2012 5:01 PM, n...@home.com wrote:
>> our insurance
>> I'm so glad Obama care is supposed to lower our health insurance, ors
>> is going up over 26 dollars a pay period, and we have to change
>> companies with higher copays, and 90% coverage, (was 100% coverage)
>>
>> so thank you obama for the lower insurance costs!
>>
>> NOT
>>
>
> The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
> pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
> year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it anymore.

Funny since the last few years health insurance has not been affected by
the current admin.

> I have a good friend that owns a small business with about 125 employees.
> He keeps close tabs on the financial situation, Washington D.C., etc.
> Studies it very closely. I complained to him about our rising insurance
> costs and he said, "It's only going to get worse."

Well, if your good friend says so, it must be true. Besides, I read it on
the Internet or usenet or whatever the fuck it is these days.

> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.

Not really.

[ASSHOLE#104 Len]

Schmoe sed:

>Funny since the last few years health insurance has not been affected by
>the current admin.

Bzzzzt.
26 year olds on mom and dads insurance?
No limits on care?
Pre-existing conditions?

Yes, these are all part of the Obamacare law right now.
The reason these were put in place first is to have the cream rise to
the top, and let the shit... come out later.

"You will NOT lose the insurance you have now". <O'bama>

Ask the food service restaurants that are now not allowing any worker
to punch in for more than 30 hours. Since they're no longer 'full
time employees', these restaurants can drop their health insurance for
these workers. Red Lobster and Olive Garden... both had GREAT
coverage for their employees previously.

ASSHOLE#104 Len

[Andy the]

On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>>
>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>
>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>
>
> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.

If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.

[Andy the]

My friend who owns the business I mentioned in an earlier post (125
employees) says that the economy is in such a downward spiral that he is
probably going to drop all health insurance for his employees and just
pay the fine. It's a lot cheaper...for now. He says that eventually the
fine for not providing insurance will increase to the point where it is
more expensive than insurance. That's a few more years down the
Obamacare highway and he'll need to make more decisions once he gets there.

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:46:02 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Being th' contrarian that I is, we have a brandy new bidiness ready to
be born on Nov. 7. We expect a change of furniture within th'
residence located at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW. I lose my ass either
way if we're wrong <g>.

Snarl

[B]

The best argument for subsidized abortions is the welfare mothers who pop
put babies like a meat grinder. It's cheaper to abort than support. The
other side is far more welfare babies would exist if subsidized abortion
didn't, they aren't all going to grow up to productive members of society.
Crime would rise. Welfare would be needed more than it is now and I'm a
fairly anti welfare state guy. Keep it legal, keep it subsided. Pays for
itself.

[B]

Private insurers that provide coverage for nearly 174 million Americans
must now justify double-digit premium increases, and nearly 76 million
Americans are covered by insurers that are now required to spend at least
80% of premium dollars on health care.

360,000 small businesses received a tax credit in 2011 to help them pay for
health insurance for an estimated 2 million workers.

Health insurance reform lowers costs for American businesses - especially
small businesses - who are struggling to remain profitable and competitive
under the status quo. The independent Congressional Budget Office confirmed
that the bill would lower health insurance premiums for the same insurance
plan by up to 4 percent for small businesses and 3 percent for large
businesses, and estimates indicate that reform could save businesses $2,000
per person in health costs.

The health policy experts and economists who have looked at this
legislation have said we are pursuing every possible mechanism to reduce
health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office found that health
insurance reform will reduce the deficit by $210 billion in this decade and
by more than $1 trillion over the following 10 years. And a family of four
would save as much as $2,300 on their premiums in 2014 compared to what
they would have paid without reform.

[n...@home.com]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:36:14 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>

wrote:

>On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>>>
>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>
>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>
>>
>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>
>If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.

my whole point was, what people "heard" the Pro life groups will do
their best to turn this into a abortion election, just like a certain
person here once said, (palin scared them because palin was going to
out law birth control) why because palin is pro life? she never said
she would stop birth control......

it all boils down to what people hear. they didn't hear the details.

I don;t like my tax money going to pay for abortions either, I also
dont; like my tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones, hell I
don't even want them going to pay for free home phones, (lifeline) we
already have to pay for free 911 when there is no phone service at
someone home

I could go on but you see my point

[n...@home.com]

that is what he said, but ryan did not make that point stand out
during the debate, look at what the pro lifers are saying,. all Jim
saying is, it was stupid for the Romney Ryan team to say what they did
on stage, they could have handled it much better, the IDIOT could had
said we see no reason or have no plans to change any legislation on
abortion, like Romney had said.

>But then again, we do know that politicians are wonderful liars, born and
>bred for just that task.
>IMHO? I am PRO-choice, but against the Government funding for it.

me too,

>(Funny that ALL Presidents have some kind of "ties" to England, the
>Illuminati, and (GASP!) " Order of the Freemasons!"
>Including Kevin Bacon and Porn legend John Holmes.
>
>I am also PRO-CHOICE regarding helmet laws in all states. <---- ON TOPIC
>'eh?

me too, but only when they don't tie laws to it like FL did

>Meaning also, that if in my Car with a shit load of airbags in it, I should
>STILL be able to wear a device that saves my cranium, should I so desire!
>But I am not!
>ANYBODY that is denied Protective HEAD/Body stuff is a retard!
>
>One with a legal right to own a firearm in one state, should be able to have
>the same RIGHTS in all the other 49.

I agree, and that is a big state issue still

>After all, my driver's and marriage "license" is good to go EVERYWHERE!
>
>Let's SIMPLIFY and ENFORCE the laws we already have, and NOT let these
>"Politicians" ruin OUR lives by making more STUMP STUPID things that "WE
>THE PEOPLE:" already understand. and you retards want to rip apart.

your calling the wrong person a retard on this topic

[n...@home.com]

you can't blame it all on Christians, I know plenty who do not think
they should be making that decision for women.

still I think the republicans have forgotten or perhaps never really
knew what conservative means

I've dropped my involvement with he RNC locally. told them I am done,
there is no conservative any more, me im fiscally conservative, and
think the gov should stay our of our lives.

[n...@home.com]

On 12 Oct 2012 21:54:06 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

>Andy the <and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On 10/11/2012 5:01 PM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>> our insurance
>>> I'm so glad Obama care is supposed to lower our health insurance, ors
>>> is going up over 26 dollars a pay period, and we have to change
>>> companies with higher copays, and 90% coverage, (was 100% coverage)
>>>
>>> so thank you obama for the lower insurance costs!
>>>
>>> NOT
>>>
>>
>> The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
>> pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
>> year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it anymore.
>
>Funny since the last few years health insurance has not been affected by
>the current admin.

where have you been?

>> I have a good friend that owns a small business with about 125 employees.
>> He keeps close tabs on the financial situation, Washington D.C., etc.
>> Studies it very closely. I complained to him about our rising insurance
>> costs and he said, "It's only going to get worse."
>
>Well, if your good friend says so, it must be true. Besides, I read it on
>the Internet or usenet or whatever the fuck it is these days.
>
>> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>
>Not really.

yea it does.

[n...@home.com]

not sure what your seeing that makes you feel so strong about the
"change" in furniture, but I don;t see it, but damn sure hope your
correct, hell I'll even buy ya a coors
>
>Snarl

[n...@home.com]

On 13 Oct 2012 00:18:00 GMT, in rec.motorcycles.harley B <bg9696

No it is not, in fact it is doing just the opposite, the health
insurance providers are going to have to add 60 billion a year in
expenses to PAY the feds , I've posted this to you before!

and our health insurance just sent out our packets for next years ins,
our ins went up, quite a bit!
5% monthly premium rise,
co-pay went up 75% UP 75%!!
and now it will not pay 100% of the bill , only 90%! the insurers did
not even offer a 100% coverage plan this year,

>small businesses - who are struggling to remain profitable and competitive
>under the status quo. The independent Congressional Budget Office confirmed
>that the bill would lower health insurance premiums for the same insurance
>plan by up to 4 percent for small businesses and 3 percent for large

they fucking lied!

[n...@home.com]

could be the insurance companies are having to start paying for the
60b a year increase to the feds?

[B]

<n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> I don;t like my tax money going to pay for abortions either, I also
> dont; like my tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones, hell I
> don't even want them going to pay for free home phones, (lifeline) we
> already have to pay for free 911 when there is no phone service at
> someone home
>
> I could go on but you see my point

Are you suggesting that people who don't have home phones shouldn't
contribute to 911 funding? Is there anything for the "greater good" that
you believe the fed govt should provide?

--
B

[B]

To what degree? Is there any greater good that the fed govt should either
write laws on or pay for with public funding? Ever see Bangladesh? That's
what your streets will look like in sunny warm Atlanta if there is no
public paid support for those the poor regardless of why they are poor.
(Not discussing that part here, just the chaos if the poor we're completely
left to their own druthers... Bangladesh.)

--
B

[B]

Could it be that the insurance companies, the same insurance companies
posting record profits, are just pigs? Want to mitigate your healthcare
costs? Buy insurance stock. One that's NOT a multinational bank/investment
firm.

[Andy the]

On 10/13/2012 5:01 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 17:36:14 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:36:44 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Course, that may depend on what happens November 6th.
>>>>
>>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>>
>>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>>
>> If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>> overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>> it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>> just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.
>
> my whole point was, what people "heard" the Pro life groups will do
> their best to turn this into a abortion election,

Agreed. I knew what you meant. I was responding to the "...I was SO
onboard with Ryan until that moment..." reply noted above.

As you said, people hear what they want to hear and then react (or
over-react as the case may be) to their interpretation of what was said.
I 'spose we're all guilty of that to some degree or another.

> just like a certain
> person here once said, (palin scared them because palin was going to
> out law birth control) why because palin is pro life? she never said
> she would stop birth control......
>
> it all boils down to what people hear. they didn't hear the details.
>
> I don;t like my tax money going to pay for abortions either, I also
> dont; like my tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones, hell I
> don't even want them going to pay for free home phones, (lifeline) we
> already have to pay for free 911 when there is no phone service at
> someone home
>
> I could go on but you see my point

Again, I agree wit ya. Too many parasites in this country. There are two
prime examples in my family. I have a niece and nephew, both in their
late 30s, who have discovered that they have "disabilities" and are
unable to work. It took my niece about a year and a half to be deemed
disabled. She tried mimicking several different mental disorders with no
success. They kept turning her down. She finally was able to act
bi-polar well enough that they tagged her as crazy. (Or perhaps they
just got tired of her coming in all the time and trying out different
mental disorders and said, "Screw it. You're crazy. Here's your money.
Now get out of my office!") When that happened she came to a family
gathering and literally bragged about it! My nephew jumped through
similar hoops until they gave him disability payments, too. They get all
sorts of perks, and do nothing but sit around the house and eat free
food while they play on the high speed internet (which you and I pay
for) all day. One of these days when the money dries up and the gubmint
can't afford to support 'em anymore they are gonna come knocking on my
door saying they are hungry and homeless. I will reply with, "Fuck you.
Get a job." Then I'll slam the door.

Not like I have an opinion or anything.

Andy aka Big Stinkie

[1hogrider]

On 10/13/2012 9:38 AM, Andy the wrote:

> door saying they are hungry and homeless. I will reply with, "Fuck you.
> Get a job." Then I'll slam the door.
>
> Not like I have an opinion or anything.
>
> Andy aka Big Stinkie

don't hold back....tell us what you really think.


--
The two most common elements in the universe- Hydrogen & Stupidity

[Steve]

Well, then bringing up abortion was (strategically) stupid.

You shouldn't throw lamb when there are sheep in the audience.

[sn...@trippin.com]

And just who th' fuck brought it up again?

>You shouldn't throw lamb when there are sheep in the audience.

She did it for a reason. Th' audience for that diatribe were th'
idiots watching. Th' smart people in attendance weren't phased by it.

If yer still undecided about whom to vote for yer moral compass is
nonexistant.

Snarl

[Steve]

On 10/13/2012 11:14 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:15 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2012 6:36 PM, Andy the wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:

>>>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>>>
>>>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>>>
>>> If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>>> overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>>> it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>>> just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.
>>>
>>
>> Well, then bringing up abortion was (strategically) stupid.
>
> And just who th' fuck brought it up again?
>

You didn't watch the debate?

Ryan brought up abortion when the moderator asked them each to respond
to how their Catholic religion would impact their policy making. At
least that's what I witnessed.

>> You shouldn't throw lamb when there are sheep in the audience.
>
> She did it for a reason. Th' audience for that diatribe were th'
> idiots watching. Th' smart people in attendance weren't phased by it.

Huh? Oh. I get it, you're saying the moderator was baiting him. I was
saying that Ryan was (still) throwing ideological meat, but to the wrong
audience, and it cost him. The primaries are over. He's on the ticket.
Time to avoid controversial social issues and remain focused on the economy.

>
> If yer still undecided about whom to vote for yer moral compass is
> nonexistant.

Moral compass? I thought we were talking about politicians.

Biden's comment on abortion matches my own philosophy on the subject.
Ryan's comments on the economy were (and always have been) compelling
enough to warrant consideration.

I was just agreeing with Tom's point of view that mentioning abortion to
the undecided voters is a losing proposition. Especially this late in
the game. That (liberal societal/rights) shit is more important than he
seemed to realize.

The "are you better off" argument doesn't work with me. I'm not any
worse off than anyone else in my wage range given the crash of the
financial markets in 2008. In fact, the only "real" impact any of the
past 6 years has had on me, was my 401k.

I'm pretty well fiscally responsible (20-30% down payment on debts that
I can afford). I could have made better decisions for sure with respect
to my retirement funding and some equity borrowing for shit that wasn't
a need, but none of that had anything to do with the economy. It just
has to do with my choices about where to put my money and how to enjoy
my life in the now.

I have a decent house which is worth more than I owe and more than I
paid, a decent 401k balance (which I would argue was artificially
inflated through 2000-2007 by the housing bubble in the first place, so
really, I'm wear I would have been without the housing bubble), a good
paying job, and good health benefits (in spite of Romneycare).

I guess you could say I'm right where I would have been, had there been
no housing bubble. I've earned my way to where I am through education
and on the job training in a field that is, and will continue to be in
demand until I retire; information technology.

Best wishes to all for the next 4 years.
Steve

[B]

Isn't most disability though private insurers? Not that familiar with it.
Some scuz people will always figure out how to steal from a system.

[B]

Must be true if ya say so. Jinks and I have no moral compass but we can
tell which way is south.

[Rick Anderson]

"B" wrote in message
news:5079b811$0$26864$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...

Some scuz people will always figure out how to steal from a system.

>^^^
All the more reason to turn those Liberals in that want something for
nothing...if you can't shoot them in the head first!

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:17:40 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 10/13/2012 11:14 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:15 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:

<whack happened>

>> She did it for a reason. Th' audience for that diatribe were th'
>> idiots watching. Th' smart people in attendance weren't phased by it.
>
>Huh? Oh. I get it, you're saying the moderator was baiting him.

Abortion has been one of th' O's phoney wars for quite some time. It
was on *th list* of topics she was gonna cover. Married to th' war on
women that doesn't exist. They've got more straw men than matches.
Ryan's not afraid to state his position, only an idiot would conclude
they're going to make abortions illegal. Those would be O voters, he
can have 'em.

>I was
>saying that Ryan was (still) throwing ideological meat, but to the wrong
>audience, and it cost him.

I'd love to see some proof that "it cost him" anything. Take all of
th' white space ya need. O's inna free fall for a very good reason.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/The-Edge-of-Panic

O had this election wrapped up before th' debate and today he's barely
got four, yeah, four states that he has solidly in his favor and only
three leaning his way: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8ojuook That's a
far fucking cry from th' 270 electoral college votes he needs. Th'
empty chair ain't got no game.

>> If yer still undecided about whom to vote for yer moral compass is
>> nonexistant.
>
>Moral compass? I thought we were talking about politicians.

Yer either in favor of abortions or yer not, ain't any gray area
there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI Fence sitter's
don't have a moral compass. Period. If it weren't for them,
lobbyists wouldn't have a job. I know, I used to be a lobbyist.

>I was just agreeing with Tom's point of view that mentioning abortion to
>the undecided voters is a losing proposition. Especially this late in
>the game. That (liberal societal/rights) shit is more important than he
>seemed to realize.

I don't cater to th' lowest common denominator (idiots) and neither
does Ryan. Remember picking kids for yer sandlot baseball game?
Remember th' kid who was always picked last because he was a worthless
little fucker? O can have every single one of them. It gives Chris
Mathews a tingle up his leg.

>The "are you better off" argument doesn't work with me. I'm not any
>worse off than anyone else in my wage range given the crash of the
>financial markets in 2008. In fact, the only "real" impact any of the
>past 6 years has had on me, was my 401k.

I didn't realize you were a business owner with employee's. I've had
to hand out pink slips to all but a skeleton crew since '09. I'm
retiring and letting go th' last few if O's reelected.

Good luck with that 401k.

Snarl

[Andy the]

Hmmmmmm. Good question. I don't know for sure. Neither of them had any
insurance for years before they became "disabled." It may be a state
funded program, too. They live in IL. Regardless, they're getting their
livelihood provided by someone...and it isn't them, so "we" must be
paying for it.

[Schmoe]

"ASSHOLE#104 Len" <AH...@att.net> wrote in message
news:cs4h78tgf07vh5ddv...@4ax.com...

> Schmoe sed:
>>Funny since the last few years health insurance has not been affected by
>>the current admin.
>
> Bzzzzt.
> 26 year olds on mom and dads insurance?
> No limits on care?
> Pre-existing conditions?

All good things. More later.

> Yes, these are all part of the Obamacare law right now.
> The reason these were put in place first is to have the cream rise to
> the top, and let the shit... come out later.

You mean like 2 wars? Got it.

> "You will NOT lose the insurance you have now". <O'bama>
>
> Ask the food service restaurants that are now not allowing any worker
> to punch in for more than 30 hours. Since they're no longer 'full
> time employees', these restaurants can drop their health insurance for
> these workers. Red Lobster and Olive Garden... both had GREAT
> coverage for their employees previously.

Those are CORPORATIONS. Always and only acting in what's in their best
interest, their being the shareholders, the shareholders being the major
shareholders. Regardless of insurance costs, they will always act in their
own interests. Let's see the specific link about Red Lobster and Olive
Garden indicating they are forcing reduced 30 hour or less weeks? I assume
if you're quoting it, it is verified by neutral sources.

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 21:05:47 -0400, "Schmoe" <s...@s.net> wrote:

Yo schmoe, at least pinhead uses th' same domain name so it's easy to
killfile his dumb ass. You could be that accommodating? If not,
perhaps a list of alla yer nym's would be helpful.

Sand. Keep poundin' it, binky

Snarl

[B]

<sn...@trippin.com> wrote:
>
> I don't cater to th' lowest common denominator (idiots) and neither
> does Ryan. Remember picking kids for yer sandlot baseball game?
> Remember th' kid who was always picked last because he was a worthless
> little fucker? O can have every single one of them.

<stares>

Wow, that completely sucks. We're you dropped on your had as a kid? For a
non-NY'er, you have an unusual if misplaced sense of superiority.

[B]

You are exactly where you belong. It's always easier to look down on he
world when you're not in it.

[ASSHOLE#104 Len]

>>I sed:

>> Bzzzzt.
>> 26 year olds on mom and dads insurance?
>> No limits on care?
>> Pre-existing conditions?

>Schmoe sed:

>All good things. More later.

What later? When?

>>I sed:

>> Yes, these are all part of the Obamacare law right now.
>> The reason these were put in place first is to have the cream rise to
>> the top, and let the shit... come out later.

>You mean like 2 wars? Got it.

Is this the remark for later? I must have missed the connection
between the sugar coated pill of O'bama Care with the 2 wars....

>>I sed:

>> "You will NOT lose the insurance you have now". <O'bama>
>>
>> Ask the food service restaurants that are now not allowing any worker
>> to punch in for more than 30 hours. Since they're no longer 'full
>> time employees', these restaurants can drop their health insurance for
>> these workers. Red Lobster and Olive Garden... both had GREAT
>> coverage for their employees previously.

>Schmoe sed:

>Those are CORPORATIONS. Always and only acting in what's in their best
>interest, their being the shareholders, the shareholders being the major
>shareholders. Regardless of insurance costs, they will always act in their
>own interests. Let's see the specific link about Red Lobster and Olive
>Garden indicating they are forcing reduced 30 hour or less weeks? I assume
>if you're quoting it, it is verified by neutral sources.

If you haven't heard about this, you've got your head in the sand or
only watch MSNBC where it was not covered. Put Red Lobster, Olive
Garden and reduced hours in a Google Search and pick the news source
*you* trust for the information. I ain't yer spoon.

Besides that, YES they are CORPORATIONS. They are SUPPOSED to look
for the best way to tun a profit. PROFITS ARE GOOD. Making money is
good.... do you know what the side benefits are for people making
profits... jobs. Ain't that something? O'bama doesn't understand
that.

Nobody opened a company and said "I'm going to open this company to
see how many jobs I can create". Every one of them opened a company
to MAKE MONEY! As they made money, people were offered jobs to keep
the company going/expanding.

My little company employes many people only because I have the ability
to pay someone else to do the work, and *I* don't have the time or
expertise. From lawyers to accountants to landscapers to pool boys
(well Pauline pays for them), to even getting my car washed.
All of that is minor compared to what the *really* wealthy pay for.

Let's tax Romney some more... say another 7 million a year. He can
well afford it. He gives *away* 7 million a year.

Now who do you think will benefit more from that 7 million?
Who do you thnk will be hurt more from not having that 7 million.
Let's not forget, he's already paid millions in taxes...

ASSHOLE#104 Len
Tax me more, I won't wash my car as much, or I'll clean my own
pool.... who really gets hurt in this scenerio? The welfare/food
stamp cheat, or the guy trying to make a living?

[n...@home.com]

On 13 Oct 2012 12:56:02 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don;t like my tax money going to pay for abortions either, I also
>> dont; like my tax dollars going to pay for free cell phones, hell I
>> don't even want them going to pay for free home phones, (lifeline) we
>> already have to pay for free 911 when there is no phone service at
>> someone home
>>
>> I could go on but you see my point
>
>Are you suggesting that people who don't have home phones shouldn't
>contribute to 911 funding?

that is not what I said, or meant anyhow

1}, I don't like my tax dollars paying for someone's cell phone, why?
why should I pay for someones F'in cell phone service? I don't want it
paying for the home phone service either.

2} my tax dollars already pay to make sure there is 911 service
available to all phone service.

3) you can plug a phone into a home land line and have 911 without
having phone service, 9if you have dialtone naturally) it's called a
warm line or some shit like that, (so why do we have to give them free
phones?)

So.... You don't mind paying for someone else cell phone service, or
their home (landline) so they can BS with their buddy...... ok fine,
how about paying for mine so I can spend more at McDonalds....<grin>.

>Is there anything for the "greater good" that
>you believe the fed govt should provide?

you mean us, the taxpayers should provide correct?

we do, even with the 911 available in a home with no service) and many
more. ems, fire, police, roads, SS, SSDI, shit there are a ton of
things we provide for the better good, so where do you want it to
stop?

[n...@home.com]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 08:38:38 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>> my whole point was, what people "heard" the Pro life groups will do
>> their best to turn this into a abortion election,
>
>Agreed. I knew what you meant. I was responding to the "...I was SO
>onboard with Ryan until that moment..." reply noted above.
>
>As you said, people hear what they want to hear and then react (or
>over-react as the case may be) to their interpretation of what was said.
>I 'spose we're all guilty of that to some degree or another.

yup we are.

>> someone home
>>
>> I could go on but you see my point
>
>Again, I agree wit ya. Too many parasites in this country. There are two
>prime examples in my family. I have a niece and nephew, both in their
>late 30s, who have discovered that they have "disabilities" and are
>unable to work. It took my niece about a year and a half to be deemed
>disabled. She tried mimicking several different mental disorders with no
>success. They kept turning her down. She finally was able to act
>bi-polar well enough that they tagged her as crazy. (Or perhaps they

hmm, I could get a few in here to state that in a hearing I'm sure!
<grin>

>door saying they are hungry and homeless. I will reply with, "Fuck you.
>Get a job." Then I'll slam the door.
>
>Not like I have an opinion or anything.
>

hehehe, me either!
>Andy aka Big Stinkie

I have nop problem with helping someone, some need it, some do have
disabilities that need ssdi, some of those cases are life long, I've
no problem with that, welfare should never be a long term cure, there
are far too many jobs in this country being taken from non resident
workers (illegally or not)

[n...@home.com]

>Some scuz people will always figure out how to steal from a system.

Social Security handles disability for those that did not have a
private disability insurance policy yes you SS tax is paying for SSDI
http://www.ssa.gov/disability/

[n...@home.com]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 16:07:39 -0500, Andy the <and...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>>

>> Isn't most disability though private insurers? Not that familiar with it.
>> Some scuz people will always figure out how to steal from a system.
>>
>Hmmmmmm. Good question. I don't know for sure. Neither of them had any
>insurance for years before they became "disabled." It may be a state

if it was SSDI, it comes from your Social security funds, I think they
have had to pay into SS within the last 5 years (or that was how it
was when I was run over) it is your federal SS taxes paying for it

[n...@home.com]

I like that one!


>Snarl

[n...@home.com]

On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:17:40 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 10/13/2012 11:14 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:15 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/12/2012 6:36 PM, Andy the wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>
>>>>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>>>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>>>>
>>>> If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>>>> overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>>>> it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>>>> just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, then bringing up abortion was (strategically) stupid.
>>
>> And just who th' fuck brought it up again?
>>
>You didn't watch the debate?
>
>Ryan brought up abortion when the moderator asked them each to respond
>to how their Catholic religion would impact their policy making. At
>least that's what I witnessed.
>

huh? did you get up for a beer?

Heading into the closing stages of Thursday night’s vice presidential
debate in Danville, Ky., moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News steered
the conversation away from foreign policy and the economy and toward
abortion, a development that pleased both President Obama’s
re-election campaign and some liberal media commentators.

Raddatz, who has been under fire in recent days for her decades-old
association with President Barack Obama, instructed Vice President Joe
Biden and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan to discuss their Catholic faith as
it regards the emotional and intensely personal issue


“We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as
this,” Raddatz said. ”And I would like to ask you both to tell me what
role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your
religion played a part in that. And, please — this is such an
emotional issue for so many people in this country — please talk
personally about this, if you could.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943677/posts

[n...@home.com]

I don;t have the positive outlook you do, and saw some polls showing
obama gaining speed over the weekend, polls are about worthless I
know, still it has me concerned that Idiot will win

from your link

201 Obama/Biden

146 Toss Ups

191 Romney/Ryan

suure isn;t showing Romney ahead yet

[Steve]

On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, ASSHOLE#104 Len wrote:
> Nobody opened a company and said "I'm going to open this company to
> see how many jobs I can create". Every one of them opened a company
> to MAKE MONEY! As they made money, people were offered jobs to keep
> the company going/expanding.

The upside of capitalism at work.

But the downside to capitalism is its agnostic position on the social
welfare (societal well being) of a nation.

We cannot be a nation of capitalists only, we must also be "socialists"
(but not in the traditional ideological sense).

A good simple read is the wiki page on "social democracy". Especially
the part where SD morphs into a "better" and more mature political
ideology after WWII by realizing the historical need to addresses the
down side of capitalism without crushing the upside of capitalism.

Trying to remain unbiased, neutral, and wanting to have a simple,
somewhat informed, educated, and productive public dialogue in the
future and for the future generations like my kids... and not advocating
for any particular political system... I'm trying to reconcile what I
see happening, with how I "feel" about it, so that I can move from
emotion to intellect. Admittedly, that's not easy as a human being.

It might be that what is happening in politics as it regards the rich
and the poor (the "owner" and the "laborer") is simply the result of the
intellectual and emotional framework of a left vs right ideology.

Specifically, the current political dialogue seems to indicate that we
may be seeing ourselves (owners and laborers) as "different" with
respect to "give and take".

Both lefties and righties consider the other party to be takers. Lefties
see righties as taking collective wealth from the laborers, and righties
see see lefties as taking that collected wealth from the individual
owners for whatever purpose. The most heinous of which we all agree (as
laborers and owners), is the redistribution of that wealth to those who
are neither owners or laborers.

A better framework for a dialogue on the economy is non-political and
void of any ideology. Simply stated, an entrepreneur invests capital
into setting up a business. A laborer invests capital into his skills.

The framework then is that laborers are the smallest business unit and
that we are all capitalists. What remains is a matter of scale and
complexity.

As businessmen of varying levels of wealth, means, and skill, it doesn't
seem unreasonable to me that in order to have a "nation", we have to owe
it to each other to stand up for each other, to have some loyalty, and
to collectively improve our skill sets and productivity as a means of
increasing wealth for all, not just for ourselves.

The problem with the economy is then easily understood as a breakdown in
the relationship between large and small businesses. Where larger
business owners are forgoing any sense of loyalty to the country and its
small business owners, even the unit laborer, in order to increase their
own wealth.

The downside to capitalism.

Capitalism is only half of the equation when it comes to the welfare of
a nation. It is up to charitable (or generous if you prefer) people to
manage capitalism for the benefit of society as a whole, rather than let
capitalism rule in its agnosticism toward society.

Peace out.
Steve

[n...@home.com]

I didn;t think we would have to beat this out again, you should know
my stance on these issues well be now, but I did say it again in
another response to you just a few moments ago

[Steve]

On 10/14/2012 11:02 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:17:40 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/13/2012 11:14 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:15 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2012 6:36 PM, Andy the wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>>>>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>>>>> overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>>>>> it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>>>>> just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, then bringing up abortion was (strategically) stupid.
>>>
>>> And just who th' fuck brought it up again?
>>>
>> You didn't watch the debate?
>>
>> Ryan brought up abortion when the moderator asked them each to respond
>> to how their Catholic religion would impact their policy making. At
>> least that's what I witnessed.
>>
>
> huh? did you get up for a beer?

Or maybe my daughter distracted me with a poorly timed comment.

>
> Heading into the closing stages of Thursday night’s vice presidential
> debate in Danville, Ky., moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News steered
> the conversation away from foreign policy and the economy and toward
> abortion

Yeah, I read the transcript pretty much right after reading Snarl's
reply. I definitely got my wires crossed on how the subject came up.

But, I still agree that it had a negative impact (at the very least
potentially large enough to be a problem), and think it would have been
wise to dodge the issue this late in the game.

I think we all agree that the bigger issues are economic and how liberal
policies may negatively impact an already ailing economy. Ryan would
have done well to play politician, avoid the subject, and divert back to
the economy.

[ASSHOLE#104 Len]

>>On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, ASSHOLE#104 Len wrote:
>> Nobody opened a company and said "I'm going to open this company to
>> see how many jobs I can create". Every one of them opened a company
>> to MAKE MONEY! As they made money, people were offered jobs to keep
>> the company going/expanding.

>Steve sed:

>The upside of capitalism at work.

>But the downside to capitalism is its agnostic position on the social
>welfare (societal well being) of a nation.

Just talking about Jobs here, Steve... and how they're created.

All the other social issues are another thing... including how the
unions were needed, and the good they *did*, how regulations are
needed as long as they are not created in a knee jerk reaction without
regard to unintended concequences.. etc...

ASSHOLE#104 Len

[Steve]

On 10/14/2012 11:36 AM, ASSHOLE#104 Len wrote:
>>> On 10/14/2012 8:54 AM, ASSHOLE#104 Len wrote:
>>> Nobody opened a company and said "I'm going to open this company to
>>> see how many jobs I can create". Every one of them opened a company
>>> to MAKE MONEY! As they made money, people were offered jobs to keep
>>> the company going/expanding.
>
>> Steve sed:
>> The upside of capitalism at work.
>
>> But the downside to capitalism is its agnostic position on the social
>> welfare (societal well being) of a nation.
>
> Just talking about Jobs here, Steve... and how they're created.

Got it. And I'm glad you're engaged.

>
> All the other social issues are another thing... including how the
> unions were needed, and the good they *did*, how regulations are

> needed...

> "as long as they are not created in a knee jerk reaction without
> regard to unintended concequences.. etc..."

Totally agreed.

I will openly admit to my own ignorance about most of this stuff, and
how that ignorance is not without personal consequence. Social Studies
was never my strong suit back in my school days. I was more interested
in tech stuff (and killing brain cells, which was an odd combination as
far as my friends were concerned). But the current political environment
is spilling all over everything and every forum imaginable, and having
(finally) awakened to the fact that my kids are going to have to survive
in this world, I'm putting in the effort to both understand the issues,
help them understand, and try to diffuse the ideological "belief"
systems that trigger emotional responses, especially my own.

I don't like the either/or mentality that seems to be out there right
now, but it is what it is. I went down to the town offices on Friday to
be sure I was still registered as undeclared. I can't put Romney in the
Whitehouse because I live in one of the few states that are pretty much
guaranteed for Obama, but my vote will definitely count in the Brown v.
Warren election, whichever way I go.

>
> ASSHOLE#104 Len
>

[sn...@trippin.com]

Th' O *had* over th' 270 required electoral college votes before th'
first debate, fuck, he was over 300 for a bit. His numbers ain't
goin' up, they're sinking like a fucking rock. And every time O's
drops, Romney's rise. See th' Toss Ups category? Over half of those
used to be th' O's. He ain't gettin' 'em back. Period. Matter of
fact most of 'em are flippin' to Romney as we speak... you just watch.

Th' O doesn't have anything to raise himself back up. It's too late.
Th' curtain was removed and th' nekkid little man was exposed as th'
empty suit he really is in th' debate. Romney cleaned his fucking
clock. There's never been a debate where th' challenger kicked th'
incumbents ass that bad. 68% - Romney to 20% - O

That jazzed th' hell out of th' Republican base as per th' early voter
numbers. Th' Democrat numbers aren't anywhere near where they were in
'08, not even half in some states, whereas th' R's are in record
number territory. Keep yer good eye on th' Independents numbers.
Romney is taking them too.

From a lobbyists point of view, once you convert someone to your side,
they'll be yer best and most dependable ally. It's every lobbyists
goal; get as many of those converts as ya can and you will win. Team
O has already lost more support than they can afford. Th' states
they're losing are goners and their voter pool is shrinking, not
growing. Romney's is going th' opposite direction.

Th' kicker is team O's losing its most valuable asset, th' MSM.
They've been carryin' his water for over four years now and that
debate let alla them lapdogs get run over by da buss, big time. They
are pissed off!!!

Th' O can't put th' curtain back up and they all know it. Th' fucking
gig is up. I'm betting my business on it. Literally.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/9bme5qu

Snarl

[sn...@trippin.com]

Lemme see if if I got this right. You accuse me of not watchin' th'
debate, when it was you who missed th' fucking boat, right? Then you
"think" Ryan's abortion stance hurt him, but provided what for proof
of that again? I mean besides nothin'. And you finish up by havin'
th' sack to try to school Paul Ryan on how to do his politicin'?!?

Go join schmoe in th' sand pile. Pound it like ya mean it.

Snarl... buh bye

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:23:51 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:

>that is not what I said, or meant anyhow

Speakin' of that, guess which President said and did this:

"This administration pledged itself last summer to an
across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income
taxes to be enacted and become effective in XXXX. I am not talking
about a quickie or a temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate
if a recession were imminent. Nor am I talking about giving the
economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. The
federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of
excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the
incentives and opportunities of private expenditures."

"When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their
capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and
profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase
incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government
has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax
liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and
expansion of our productive plant and equipment."

"Our true choice is not between tax reduction on the one hand and the
avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly
clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national
security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax
rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just
as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the
lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by
wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic
recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records. In
short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and
tax revenues are too low. And the soundest way to raise the revenues
in the long run is to cut the rates now."

Snarl... no searching allowed

[sn...@trippin.com]

It used to pay th' bills. Literally. People think that one of th'
major problems with politics are lobbyists. They're dead wrong. It's
th' elected representatives who don't have any morals and can be
swayed that are th' problem. Without them there wouldn't be any
lobbyists. Period.

I have a moral compass and don't need any lobbying to get where I'm
goin'. And I *used* to care about th' lost mutherfuckers out there
that don't have one to guide 'em. I don't give a fuck about 'em
anymore. And I don't owe 'em a fucking thing either. They're idiots.
If they wanna walk around bumpin' their heads into shit... ain't my
fuckin' skull.

Snarl

[Rick Anderson]

wrote in message news:datl78905do6la0dd...@4ax.com...

>^^^

Was a Teleprompter allowed?

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:02:12 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:

>On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 14:17:40 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/13/2012 11:14 AM, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:55:15 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2012 6:36 PM, Andy the wrote:
>>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:00 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/12/2012 8:23 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> not to worry, Obama will win
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ryan made sure of that last night on the abortion issues, all the
>>>>>>> people heard was, Romney/Ryan will stop Abortions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Totally agree. I was SO onboard with Ryan until that moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Romney/Ryan are elected and they appoint Supreme Court judges who
>>>>> overturn Roe v. Wade, that will not stop abortions. It will simply refer
>>>>> it to the individual states. Abortions will still be available...they
>>>>> just won't be subsidized by federal dollars.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, then bringing up abortion was (strategically) stupid.
>>>
>>> And just who th' fuck brought it up again?
>>>
>>You didn't watch the debate?
>>
>>Ryan brought up abortion when the moderator asked them each to respond
>>to how their Catholic religion would impact their policy making. At
>>least that's what I witnessed.
>>
>
>huh? did you get up for a beer?

They can't hear th' truth. They block it out. It's truly
pathological. When ya point that out they start callin' ya names and
accusing you of doing what they did, and I quote th' example above
"You didn't watch the debate?". I'm truly sick of it.

Don't tell anyone, but yesterday I taught one of th' grandkids how to
make a libtard dance and scream. He's only two, but he's already got
it down pat, heh, heh. He thinks it's funnier n' hell too. Kinda
expectin' a call from his Mom after church... uh oh. Then again,
prolly ain't any libtard's in there.

>Heading into the closing stages of Thursday night’s vice presidential
>debate in Danville, Ky., moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News steered
>the conversation away from foreign policy and the economy and toward
>abortion, a development that pleased both President Obama’s
>re-election campaign and some liberal media commentators.
>
>Raddatz, who has been under fire in recent days for her decades-old
>association with President Barack Obama, instructed Vice President Joe
>Biden and Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan to discuss their Catholic faith as
>it regards the emotional and intensely personal issue
>
>
> “We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as
>this,” Raddatz said. ”And I would like to ask you both to tell me what
>role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
>Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your
>religion played a part in that. And, please — this is such an
>emotional issue for so many people in this country — please talk
>personally about this, if you could.”
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943677/posts

Yer gonna make 'em implode, Tom.

Snarl... as you were

[B]

Since SCOTUS appointments may affect that law as multiple GOP campaigns at
POTUS and congressional levels have laid out their anti-choice agendas as
part of the campaign, it's fair game for debate.

[B]

Steve, I hope you can live with this devastating disappointment. Of course,
Snarl doesn't actually plonk you, he just wants you to think he does. Don't
ask me how I know this but I do. Snarl's bit immature when it comes to
dealing with people. He's a bit isolated from the rest of the world which
I'm sure is his preference but it makes it difficult for to have a
conversation without insulting those who disagree with his views. He talks
about the sand pile but indeed he can't play successfully in the sandbox.

[B]

Yes, fair enough.

[B]

Yeah Snarl, that's our problem. Oh wait, never mind, I'm the the one who's
always bitching and moaning and spewing hatred for the immoral liberals.
Immoral. That's funny considering the GOP history on the subject.

[EZ]

Andy the <and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
> pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
> year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it anymore.

Same here. Mine's going up $40 a month in January.

>
> November 6th.

I know who I'm voting for. My health ins. just for me is close to
$600/month already. Wife has her own plan, costs almost as much.

--
EZ Larry
BS #269

[JMark]

Steve wrote:

>
> A good simple read is the wiki page on "social democracy".

Take a look at social capitalism.

Even Milton Friedman advocated a level playing field, but that can
certainly allow basic regulation to become acute to the point of
corruption and damage.

What needs to be addressed is the notion that when times are good, the
private sector keeps the profits and when the private sector crashes
public treasure is expected to recapture all loss.

Add to that the number of government employees, bureaucrats, where
efficiency/performance and accountability are severely lacking. A year
old WSJ article places their total number somewhere around 22-25
million. While many are entirely necessary, the drain to the economy is
too high. Their retirement funds are invested in the private sector,
overseen by bureaucrats who may well have no real financial experience.
No matter, the funds are guaranteed by the taxpayer, loss or no loss.

So, as I am running out of wind, feel free to cheer, the real thing that
bugs middle class folks on down is their susceptibility to the effects
of loss not being shared by the wealthy. No big news, in days of yore
the princes and nobles taxed peasants and artisans to finance their
quests for power and prestige, nice tapestry, silver plate and jewel
embroidered cloth. They also showed the less fortunate how to rape,
plunder and pillage... yea, I know, too much second wind.

As you were...


--
Mark

[Steve]

From the state with Romneycare...

http://tinyurl.com/c9y9w8e
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c9y9w8e

"“This is a very slight increase,” said Barbara Anthony, the state
undersecretary of consumer affairs and business regulation. “If you look
at the data since 2010, there’s been a continued moderation in average
rate increases. Compared to where we were two years ago when average
base rate increases were in the teens, they’re now in the low single
digits.”"

"Anthony cited the Patrick administration’s efforts to rein in health
costs, culminating in a law signed by the governor Monday that allows
medical care spending to grow no faster than the state’s economy through
2017."

Steve
(I'm not ascribing any merit, just relaying the data point)

[n...@home.com]

On 13 Oct 2012 13:03:29 GMT, in rec.motorcycles.harley B <bg9696
bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> That's odd since its not in effect yet. Could it be the insurance companies
>>> just gouging while the gouging's good. Could it be?
>>
>> could be the insurance companies are having to start paying for the
>> 60b a year increase to the feds?
>
>Could it be that the insurance companies, the same insurance companies
>posting record profits, are just pigs? Want to mitigate your healthcare

really pigs with record profits? you think they want to mitigate your
health care?> YOUR FUCKING RIGHT!

How about this, - you see YOU just made my point!!,

the feds made a law that every single person must comply with!
it is called Obama Care - they made this law, for you I and every
other sheep to be forced to buy health care insurance!

why do you think the insurance lobbies did not fight the 60 billion a
year they pay the gov!!! they want to get rich perhaps????

here it is - want to get rich?
provide something and make that product/service a law that forces
everyone to buy it.

who just won? the insurance companies at your tax expense.....

just like with M/C helmets years ago when they were mandated law, just
like when the patents for R-12 were expiring

>costs? Buy insurance stock. One that's NOT a multinational bank/investment
>firm.

how many people can afford to buy stock that are now forced to buy
health care ins?

the guy making 40k a year that has 2.5 kids at home and gets more back
in fed tax than he pays in?

Come on schmoe,, your no dummy! I see that, your not stupid, your just
not doing your own research, your taking what is fed to you, read what
I just said, obamacare is backed by the feds, who are owned by the
insurance lobby, just like many other companies, do you know the
insurance lobbies pay less tax revenue than oil companies so many
bitch and moan about and make higher profits per dollar? hell
Microsoft pays less and gates is what, the richest MF around? and an
obama buddie!

wake up to this bullshit!

obama care WAS NOT FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE it will never lower the
health care insurance costs!! howcan it? it is set up to raise them ,
now saying that obamacae will be over 2.7 trillion, not the 900
billion they said!

Schmoe!!!!! ARGH!!!!!


ok lets drink

[n...@home.com]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:24:43 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:23:51 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:
>
>>that is not what I said, or meant anyhow

I did not know who said that, I had to look it up, I was one in 1962!
you must remember, I'm not older than dirt like you <g>


funny though. but face it, neither party is the same it was back in he
50's 60's

[n...@home.com]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:12:44 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>
>>201 Obama/Biden
>>
>>146 Toss Ups
>>
>>191 Romney/Ryan
>>
>>suure isn;t showing Romney ahead yet
>
>Th' O *had* over th' 270 required electoral college votes before th'
>first debate, fuck, he was over 300 for a bit. His numbers ain't
>goin' up, they're sinking like a fucking rock. And every time O's
>drops, Romney's rise. See th' Toss Ups category? Over half of those
>used to be th' O's. He ain't gettin' 'em back. Period. Matter of
>fact most of 'em are flippin' to Romney as we speak... you just watch.

I hope so, still keep in mind, im not a big romney fan, but I want him
to win, I want someone else in place, Obama is not working period.

>
>Th' O doesn't have anything to raise himself back up. It's too late.
>Th' curtain was removed and th' nekkid little man was exposed as th'
>empty suit he really is in th' debate. Romney cleaned his fucking
>clock. There's never been a debate where th' challenger kicked th'
>incumbents ass that bad. 68% - Romney to 20% - O
>

yea, but last nights debate was a joke, at least IMO, saying that
though, I bet last nights doesn;t make much of a difference,

>number territory. Keep yer good eye on th' Independents numbers.
>Romney is taking them too.

hope so, I hope they put their vote for romney, any other vote is for
obama in my opinion

>
>From a lobbyists point of view, once you convert someone to your side,
>they'll be yer best and most dependable ally. It's every lobbyists
>goal; get as many of those converts as ya can and you will win. Team
>O has already lost more support than they can afford. Th' states
>they're losing are goners and their voter pool is shrinking, not
>growing. Romney's is going th' opposite direction.
>
>Th' kicker is team O's losing its most valuable asset, th' MSM.
>They've been carryin' his water for over four years now and that
>debate let alla them lapdogs get run over by da buss, big time. They
>are pissed off!!!
>
>Th' O can't put th' curtain back up and they all know it. Th' fucking
>gig is up. I'm betting my business on it. Literally.

I've been selling off, If Oasswipeo gets elected, im shutting the
little bit of work I have off, selling everything out and paying off
_all_ my debt, seriously be debt free.

[n...@home.com]

yea, I might not had dodged it, I would had called it like it is,
romney hgas said he had no plan to changte the current laws on it, and
I would had stuck to that.

last night was even more of a joke obama forcing the issue that romney
does not want the ins comanies to be forced to pay for rubbers and
abortions, I would had stuck to that one as well though, screw that,

[n...@home.com]

I really think Schmoe is a republican at heart just doesn't know it,
and has not had or taken the time to find the financial facts,


he's coming around though

<g>


>Snarl... as you were

[n...@home.com]

On 14 Oct 2012 20:43:19 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>>

>> ?We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as
>> this,? Raddatz said. ?And I would like to ask you both to tell me what

>> role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
>> Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your

>> religion played a part in that. And, please ? this is such an
>> emotional issue for so many people in this country ? please talk
>> personally about this, if you could.?

>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943677/posts
>
>Since SCOTUS appointments may affect that law as multiple GOP campaigns at
>POTUS and congressional levels have laid out their anti-choice agendas as
>part of the campaign, it's fair game for debate.

I never said it wasn;t fair game for debate...........

[ASSHOLE#104 Len]

>Tom sed:
>paying off_all_ my debt, seriously be debt free.

While that is always a good goal, and I would not try to pretend to
know your financial circumstances... let me say this, about that.

Debt is good. (moderation always).
Housing debt at 4% interest is the best thing any *young* person has
going for them RIGHT now. Again (moderation, if you're not underwater
and you can manage the payments (1/4 of your earnings).

Even a car loan at 2 or 3% is ok,,, (again see above regarding percent
of income).

Reason: The stock market is returning 10 to 12% right now. Do the
math.

The interest rates might stay low another 12 to 18 months.... after
that, we have to pay for the money we've been printing. Interest
rates WILL rise. In an inflationary period, it's better to have debt
(if you're a consumer, NOT the government).

Economics 101 is done for today.

The above class does NOT take into account, paying off a mortgage to
get rid of debt to make your life easier... nor does it imply you
should go INTO debt to take the money and *play* the market.

ASSHOLE#104 Len

[n...@home.com]

I know you and I do not have conversations any longer, and you may
well have me killfiled, but if you do see this,

a post like this, are the ones from you I miss seeing.




tom

[n...@home.com]

On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 21:45:39 GMT, EZ <EZ.R...@NOSPAMsbcglobal.net>
wrote:

I know ours is over a grand now (but it is for my wife and I),

between the monthly pmt going up, the out of pocket now going to be
10% and my co-pay going up over 70%, I'm not sure yet what our
monthly gross increase will be, I have continuous medical care, so im
in the docs monthly or every couple months, sometimes more than a
couple times a month, in fact I'm pretty sure I will be back in for
more surgery hopefully outpatient or just overnight for my leg soon)

between all if it, this could be a large increase in our health care
costs, to the tune of hundreds each month, good thing I just decreased
my mortgage interest, now I can give it to the health care industry
under obama care

[Mike Huckabee]

Not@ wrote in message news:b4jt78ppcqoq62iic...@4ax.com...

>^^^^
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3hY1eagq88&feature=g-vrec

[n...@home.com]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 07:45:31 -0400, Steve <Ste...@nospam.com> wrote:

>On 10/14/2012 5:45 PM, EZ wrote:
>> Andy the <and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The wife and I are retired, so we pay for our insurance out of our own
>>> pocket. 100%. It has been going up the last few years...especially last
>>> year. If Obama keep "lowering" out rates we won't be able to afford it anymore.
>>
>> Same here. Mine's going up $40 a month in January.
>>
>>>
>>> November 6th.
>>
>> I know who I'm voting for. My health ins. just for me is close to
>> $600/month already. Wife has her own plan, costs almost as much.
>>
>
> From the state with Romneycare...
>

and the whole point is Obama told us his plan would make our health
care more affordable.

it was a bs statement,
but it may well cut health care "costs" to the insurers!

by raising insurance rates to you and I, again I say, want to get
rich, provide something and make it law that everyone has to have it

[sn...@trippin.com]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:50:30 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:24:43 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:

<schnipp>

>I did not know who said that, I had to look it up, I was one in 1962!
>you must remember, I'm not older than dirt like you <g>

Correct, on both counts. Kid. Most peoples first guess is Ronald
Reagan who was also a JFK Democrat back then. And they both fixed th'
economy th' same way President Romney will.

>funny though. but face it, neither party is the same it was back in he
>50's 60's

Todays Tea party voted for JFK. Th' libtards these days would've
thrown him under th' bus. And they call us radicals.

Snarl

[sn...@trippin.com]

Guys like him think they already know it all and don't need to waste
their precious time actually researching th' facts. Facts aren't
going to fit in with his perceptions anyway. Can't be havin' that
shit.

>he's coming around though
>
><g>

I can't respect anyone who willfully remains a useless idiot. If ya
look at th' folks who *don't* have their hands raised in this pic,
they're th' same people like schmoe who haven't read Reckless
Endangerment. Th' ones with their hands up are sick of having their
intelligence insulted and being lied to.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/9amfvjb

Snarl

[n...@home.com]

hehe, anyone that calls me a radical just does not know me very well
at all


>
>Snarl

[n...@home.com]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:13:32 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>><g>
>
>I can't respect anyone who willfully remains a useless idiot. If ya
>look at th' folks who *don't* have their hands raised in this pic,
>they're th' same people like schmoe who haven't read Reckless
>Endangerment. Th' ones with their hands up are sick of having their
>intelligence insulted and being lied to.

I loved obama's little speech on coal last night.........

I got a laugh out of it

K, got a laugh out of statement that said he is making it easier for
those that work here legally to get green cards, she flat called him a
liar and that thye have made it hared, she deals with that everyday

she also got a kick out his statements of bringing manufacturing back
and who he has on his boards, like the GE sitting on them, which she
also deals with everyday

he is pretty much a flat liar,

then again, romney might be as w2ell, but I feel if he is, kick his
ass out too, obama has already proven his record, SHIT

>
>http://preview.tinyurl.com/9amfvjb
>
>Snarl

[B]

You should also start building bomb shelters and teachin' the younguns to
duck and cover. Nuttin' better than a good ole fashion GWB fear mongerin'
to get middle America afraidy of the scary Muslim negro.Fawk!

[B]

Reality is Tom I'm a true, die hard indie. I belong to no party, I have
voted for both. I lean socially left and fiscally right. I understand that
it seems at odds with each other but it's not.

If the GOP platform was not owned/cooped by the Christian/faux religious
right, did not want to OVER fund the military, illegalize AND stop govt
funding of Planned Parenthood etc... and stopped including morons like
Palin, Ryan and the Louisianna douchebag....they'd probably have me. There
are many original GOP fundamentals I agree with. Take your party back.

[B]

Healthcare rates have been skyrocketing long before Obamacare. You must
realize that. Come one now. Skyrocketing for YEARS! Most of the new law
hasn't even been implemented, not for 2 more years!

[B]

<sn...@trippin.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 10:15:08 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:26:35 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:02:12 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> “We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as
>>>> this,” Raddatz said. ”And I would like to ask you both to tell me what
>>>> role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
>>>> Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your
>>>> religion played a part in that. And, please — this is such an
>>>> emotional issue for so many people in this country — please talk
>>>> personally about this, if you could.”
>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943677/posts
>>>
>>> Yer gonna make 'em implode, Tom.
>>>
>>
>> I really think Schmoe is a republican at heart just doesn't know it,
>> and has not had or taken the time to find the financial facts,
>
> Guys like him think they already know it all and don't need to waste
> their precious time actually researching th' facts. Facts aren't
> going to fit in with his perceptions anyway.

Have you actually researched both sides or just that what your read must be
true because you chose to read it or because someone you like told you to
read it so again it must be true.

Can't be havin' that
> shit.
>
>> he's coming around though
>>
>> <g>
>
> I can't respect anyone who willfully remains a useless idiot. If ya
> look at th' folks who *don't* have their hands raised in this pic,
> they're th' same people like schmoe who haven't read Reckless
> Endangerment. Th' ones with their hands up are sick of having their
> intelligence insulted and being lied to.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/9amfvjb

Snarl, your life is defined by your opinion. If someone doesn't agree with
your opinion or what you read, they are simply wrong and then, in typical
GOP format, the insults are hurled, a sure sign of an inferior argument.

[B]

<n...@home.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:13:32 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>> <g>
>>
>> I can't respect anyone who willfully remains a useless idiot. If ya
>> look at th' folks who *don't* have their hands raised in this pic,
>> they're th' same people like schmoe who haven't read Reckless
>> Endangerment. Th' ones with their hands up are sick of having their
>> intelligence insulted and being lied to.
>
> I loved obama's little speech on coal last night.........
>
> I got a laugh out of it

Agreed. There is no such thing as "clean coal". It's a left scam.

> K, got a laugh out of statement that said he is making it easier for
> those that work here legally to get green cards, she flat called him a
> liar and that thye have made it hared, she deals with that everyday
>
> she also got a kick out his statements of bringing manufacturing back
> and who he has on his boards, like the GE sitting on them, which she
> also deals with everyday

Both are liars. Left supported free trade with China and the RMB imbalance
because it supplies the U.S. with what it covers the very most, cheap
consumables. Neither party has the alls to fuck with that!

> he is pretty much a flat liar,

Both are flat out liars. It's their job as they define it.

> again, romney might be as w2ell, but I feel if he is, kick his
> ass out too, obama has already proven his record, SHIT

Silly to say that. Obama held his own by all reasonable accounts.


--
B

[n...@home.com]

On 18 Oct 2012 02:05:51 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

>
>> again, romney might be as w2ell, but I feel if he is, kick his
>> ass out too, obama has already proven his record, SHIT
>
>Silly to say that. Obama held his own by all reasonable accounts.

HUH? have you not paid any attention?, his record is shit! he has done
nothing to improve anything, have you not seen his increases in the
national debt?

[n...@home.com]

On 18 Oct 2012 01:49:06 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:26:35 -0700, sn...@trippin.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:02:12 -0400, n...@home.com wrote:
>>>

>>>> ?We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as
>>>> this,? Raddatz said. ?And I would like to ask you both to tell me what

>>>> role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.
>>>> Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your

>>>> religion played a part in that. And, please ? this is such an
>>>> emotional issue for so many people in this country ? please talk
>>>> personally about this, if you could.?

>>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2943677/posts
>>>
>>> Yer gonna make 'em implode, Tom.
>>>
>>
>> I really think Schmoe is a republican at heart just doesn't know it,
>> and has not had or taken the time to find the financial facts,
>>
>>
>> he's coming around though
>
>Reality is Tom I'm a true, die hard indie. I belong to no party, I have
>voted for both. I lean socially left and fiscally right. I understand that
>it seems at odds with each other but it's not.
>

no it is not I agree to some extent, I have the same opinion, but to
say I lean socially left, is wrong,
Me I want the gov to keep out of our lives, with have plenty of laws
on the books now, hell many need to be removed, socially left also
keeps a stupid amount of people living on welfare, the left is worse
than the right in that aspect as well as some of the other stupid
shit, - gun laws would just be one more of them. and I give a shit
less about some gays right to be married........ WTF do they want to
force churches to marry gay? I thought we were supposed to keep church
and state separate..........

[n...@home.com]

On 18 Oct 2012 01:55:32 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:


>>
>> between all if it, this could be a large increase in our health care
>> costs, to the tune of hundreds each month, good thing I just decreased
>> my mortgage interest, now I can give it to the health care industry
>> under obama care
>
>Healthcare rates have been skyrocketing long before Obamacare. You must
>realize that. Come one now. Skyrocketing for YEARS! Most of the new law
>hasn't even been implemented, not for 2 more years!

actually this is the highest hike I have seen in one single year as
long as I can remember, our HI is under her policy now, but it is the
highest her working for this company, (which is 12 years now I think,
and employees some 440,000 employees) her previously working for the
DOD and my policies before that.

BUT you must remember Obama said this will lower our costs! and yes
there is more to come in the next two years, you think the ins
industry is not going to make up the 60 billion a year they will be
paying the gov?

Obama said it would lower it plain and simple,

why is it you like the gov to put more laws into place?,
where did the constitution ever say you must be forced to have health
care?

more laws, bigger gov, more spending, forcing someone else to be what
you want them to be.

[B]

I meant the Tuesday debate. Not debating his record.

His record is mixed. It's not shit unless you are so partisan that you
can't find any good things he accomplished. Nothing to discuss if his
record is shit as you wrote.

[B]

You know we agree on welfare.

- gun laws would just be one more of them.

We'll never agree on this.

and I give a shit
> less about some gays right to be married........ WTF do they want to
> force churches to marry gay? I thought we were supposed to keep church
> and state separate..........

Churches have nothing to do with it. A private church does not have to
marry anyone. Marriage is a state contract. The religious part as you well
know is strictly optional, one which many people today disavow. Churches
won't be REQUIRED to marry gays.

[B]

Why isolate healthcare as the unreasonable govt expense? How about trillion
dollar wars? Trillion. Trillion. Doesn't that seem insane? We can kill
innocents in Iraq for a coupla trillion but not provide basic healthcare
for our own? Huh?

[n...@home.com]

On 18 Oct 2012 01:41:02 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been selling off, If Oasswipeo gets elected, im shutting the
>> little bit of work I have off, selling everything out and paying off
>> _all_ my debt, seriously be debt free.
>
>You should also start building bomb shelters and teachin' the younguns to
>duck and cover. Nuttin' better than a good ole fashion GWB fear mongerin'
>to get middle America afraidy of the scary Muslim negro.Fawk!

sheesh, you see you are a typical left wing nutcase,


lets get a couple things straight

bomb shelter, well not a bad idea really, but I have kids and K has
family scattered all over the country, should shit hit the fan, I
won't be able to get them here to be safer (key word safer)

IMo if it gets that bad, it is going to be one fucked up mess, if it
gets as bad as some people think, I'm not sure I want to survive it,
hell if I can;t get my family to safety then fuck it, no reason to
exist.........

hopefully i'd spit some beechnut in some pricks eyes and shoot him
with my ole 45 on my way out..........

<g>

yea, I've met some of them that think like that though, I'd sitll want
to see them stop a platoon coming down the street (from a distance)

fuck obama he is a looser, he has done nothing to fix squat, time to
let someone else have a go at it.

just like your left wing nuts said about bush fucking everything up
and they said Give obama a chance, well he's had it............ he's a
fuckup

.

[n...@home.com]

On 18 Oct 2012 12:35:31 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:

><n...@home.com> wrote:
>> On 18 Oct 2012 02:05:51 GMT, B <bg9696 bigYell> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> again, romney might be as w2ell, but I feel if he is, kick his
>>>> ass out too, obama has already proven his record, SHIT
>>>
>>> Silly to say that. Obama held his own by all reasonable accounts.
>>
>>
>> HUH? have you not paid any attention?, his record is shit! he has done
>> nothing to improve anything, have you not seen his increases in the
>> national debt?
>
>I meant the Tuesday debate. Not debating his record.
>

ok,

>His record is mixed. It's not shit unless you are so partisan that you
>can't find any good things he accomplished. Nothing to discuss if his
>record is shit as you wrote.

under his watch Osama is supposedly deader than a door nail, so your
right, something good was accomplished...........

[JMark]

n...@home.com wrote:

> I know you and I do not have conversations any longer, and you may
> well have me killfiled, but if you do see this,
>
> a post like this, are the ones from you I miss seeing.

I've told you countless times that I don't kill file anyone and you are
welcome to converse with me any time you wish. You just ignore my
replies such as this, it seems... ya dink.


--
JMark

[Steve]

On 10/18/2012 8:21 AM, n...@home.com wrote:
> Me I want the gov to keep out of our lives, with have plenty of laws
> on the books now, hell many need to be removed, socially left also

When a centrist like me says they lean socially left, they're talking
about the government making laws that keep others from telling us what
we can't do.

Like get an abortion.
Marry someone of the same sex.
Serve in the military.
Ride without a helmet.

> force churches to marry gay? I thought we were supposed to keep church
> and state separate..........
>

Actually, it was churches like the Episcopalians that first accepted gay
marriage. It's the state that's against it. Of course, we all know that
"state" means, folks who are afraid of others being allowed to live as
they choose, largely right leaning socialists (moral collectivists) like
Christian conservatives, who see everything that makes them socially
uncomfortable (afraid) as a sin worthy of hellfire and damnation (if
stated in more amiable terms by the nicer of them).

Bloviatingly yours,
Steve

[B]

Fuckin' socialist! <g>

[n...@home.com]

uh, if I ignored your replies, would I had commented on it?

hell I didn;t even think you were around here any more, I always look
for your reply's waiting for those witty comments,and of course the
comments when you do state fact as you know it without the sarcasm,