No bums allowed at the limo liberal spectacular...
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Homeless people are being given museum and movie tickets, among other
schemes, to get them the heck outta downtown for the convention,
and
Obama's choice to move his speech to the stadium will apparently
quadruple the "carbon footprint" of the entire convention over his
giving it at the convention center, and that only takes into account the
facility load, not the additional load of getting all of the extra folks
to the stadium. Supposedly, the speech alone will also have
approximately 4 times the carbon footprint of the GOP convention, as
well. Hmmm...I guess he might be leaning toward Al "Green Like Me"
Gore...well, if the convention folks can arrange to land all the Goron
Gulfstreams, including Gore's, and find a place to park all the stretch
Hummers to cart all of them to rented mansions and hotel floors...
HTH,
R
daytripper
George Cleveland
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
You see Richard forgets that not everyone listens Rush or gets the
daily "Talking Points for Paid Trolls" (T.P.P.T) email from the RNC.
hth
Geo. C.
gregat...@fastmail.fm
> Two funny things with regard to the Dem convention in Denver...
>
> Homeless people are being given museum and movie tickets, among other
> schemes, to get them the heck outta downtown for the convention,
>
So how many tickets do you get if you promise to stay away? What
happens
if you change your mind *after* you get the tickets? Are you allowed
to sell
them if you don't come back?
> and
>
> Obama's choice to move his speech to the stadium will apparently
> quadruple the "carbon footprint" of the entire convention over his
> giving it at the convention center, and that only takes into account the
> facility load, not the additional load of getting all of the extra folks
> to the stadium. Supposedly, the speech alone will also have
> approximately 4 times the carbon footprint of the GOP convention, as
> well. Hmmm...I guess he might be leaning toward Al "Green Like Me"
> Gore...well, if the convention folks can arrange to land all the Goron
> Gulfstreams, including Gore's, and find a place to park all the stretch
> Hummers to cart all of them to rented mansions and hotel floors...
>
It's nice to see the outer fringe take such an interest in carbon
footprints
(I always keep a pan of coal dust next to the front door, and step in
it
before heading out in the morning).
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
Or:
or:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/16900475/detail.html
As to the carbon footprint thing, it apparently got its start from some
"liberal" site's bitch about how sporting stadiums are such an waste of
resources, etc. And also apparently, the numbers are at least fairly
close. I think most sensible people would understand that 10,000 folks
at a convention hall already in use would have a significantly smaller
carbon footprint than 5-6 times that amount in a stadium fired up solely
for a speech.
H _T_ H,
R
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Well, yeah, there's that...and a fair number of news outlets in
Colorado...and a fair number of worldwide news outlets...for a local
take, see my reply to 'tripper.
>
>
>hth
H _T_ H,
R
...and count me among those who don't listen to Rush or those who get
emails from the RNC...
>
>
>Geo. C.
>
daytripper
<georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
It appears his game plan is to BORE everyone to death before the election.
I mean, not only does he use 200 words when a dozen or so well-chosen words
would do (see: "How to tell what size fly?" for some classic examples) but he
has some weird thing going on in his head that anyone here actually gives two
craps what he has to say - about *anything*, never mind politics...
I don't believe anyone here gives even one crap about what I have to say, but
at least I don't hound people with one-sided political crap every effin' day -
while professing (and this is really....um....Rich) that I don't care who gets
elected...
/daytripper (It's ridiculous....but then, so is he...)
Russell D.
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<SNICKER>,
R
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Dave LaCourse
"The host committee for the Democratic National Convention wanted
15,000 fanny packs for volunteers. But they had to be made of organic
cotton. By unionized labor. In the USA.
Official merchandiser Bob DeMasse scoured the country. His weary
conclusion: "That just doesn't exist." "
No wonder we are slipping as a nation. The effin liberals will give
it all away. Thankfully, I will be dead before that happens.
Idiots.
Dave
(at Lakewood for the sixth time, awaiting Myron)
sned...@msn.com
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:29:08 -0500, rdean3REM...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
David, you are full of shit as far as your political awareness. It
doesn't seem to matter to you how many of the crowd you voted in
steal, get caught, betray American intelligence officers, sell arms to
our enemies, cavort with male prostitutes, shoot each other in the
face, cook the books, cheat on their spouses, lie under oath, etc etc
etc.
I think you could personally witness the Bushies bindle fucking girl
monkeys on the White House lawn and you would blame it on the "effin
liberals." And other times I think you must just love to piss people
off with this non-sense, because even a light reading of the US
newspapers would clue you into just what has transpired over the last
7 years.
Dave
George Cleveland
I guess what I don't understand is what was so bad about the Dems
trying to find something for there freebies that wouldn't come back
and be used against them by the Rovians. Is there something wrong
about American made fanny packs? If they had been made in China it
would have been on Rush's show the next day as an example of how
hypocritical the Dems are.
And make no mistake about it. The Repubs are desperate. Take, for
example, Richard's huge "carbon footprint" of Mile High as opposed to
the Pepsi Center. McCainites know that Obama giving a speech in that
venue was a masterpiece of political staging. So they have to try to
find something to damage the impact the speech will have. Apparently
the best they can come up with is the increased carbon footprint
thing. Of course they conveniently forget to mention that Mile High
holds 76,000 people. The Pepsi Center holds about a quarter of that.
So in fact the carbon footprint, even if it is 4X that of the Pepsi
Center (which I doubt... no air conditioning needed at Mile High), is
moot since it holds 4X the people. The "carbon footprint" per person
would be identical. Or are they saying that because 4x the number of
people will see Obama then there will be 4x the carbon footprint. In
that case the only thing Barry could do would be to give his
acceptance speech in his living room to Michelle and the girls.
hth
Geo. C.
Who is looking forward to the news films of those little girls running
around the White House. Nothing like the father of young kids to liven
up the Presidency.
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/4/-/2/mccain_simpsons_2008.jpg
Dave LaCourse
>steal, get caught, betray American intelligence officers, sell arms to
>our enemies, cavort with male prostitutes, shoot each other in the
>face, cook the books, cheat on their spouses, lie under oath, etc etc
>etc.
Betray intelligence officers? Oh, Valerie. Shit, she was outed long
before they triedto blame Rove for it. Her old man even talked about
her. The rest, as quoted above, sounds like the Clinton
administration, except for the shoot each other in the face.
Bite me, David. And remember, Ideology Sux. Oh, unless, of course,
it is YOUR ideology. Right?
They should have cut your balls off when they took the prostate, Dave.
Or did they........
Dave
(Two small salmon (12-13 inches, and a 15 inch brookie after dinner,
all on caddis dries.)
Dave LaCourse
<georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>Is there something wrong
>about American made fanny packs?
Of course not. But like the guy said, try to find one made by union
labor (biggest shit deal in this country), and certain kind of cotton.
They could have had a company make the damn things and be done with
it, but noooooooo, they have to qualify it so that they look good.
Fuckin' unions suck, BIG TIME!
Dave
rw
The Dems are sell-outs. The fanny packs should be made of hemp.
--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
Tim Lysyk
> Dave LaCourse wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:59:36 -0500, George Cleveland
>> <georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is there something wrong
>>> about American made fanny packs?
>>
>>
>> Of course not. But like the guy said, try to find one made by union
>> labor (biggest shit deal in this country), and certain kind of cotton.
>> They could have had a company make the damn things and be done with
>> it, but noooooooo, they have to qualify it so that they look good.
>>
>> Fuckin' unions suck, BIG TIME!
Yeah, nothing could be worse than than organized workers trying to make
management deal fairly with them.
Tim Lysyk
Local Steward, PIPSC
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
> I guess what I don't understand is what was so bad about the Dems
>trying to find something for there freebies that wouldn't come back
>and be used against them by the Rovians. Is there something wrong
>about American made fanny packs? If they had been made in China it
>would have been on Rush's show the next day as an example of how
>hypocritical the Dems are.
Well, of course it would. But the issue is not really what Limpdick
might or might not have made of it, its about talk versus action. A
whole pack of Dem pols pay all sorts of lip service to "being green"
(ala Gore) while not personally doing shit about it if it impinges upon
their personal lives in a detrimental way.
>
> And make no mistake about it. The Repubs are desperate. Take, for
>example, Richard's huge "carbon footprint" of Mile High as opposed to
>the Pepsi Center. McCainites know that Obama giving a speech in that
>venue was a masterpiece of political staging.
Er, nope.
>So they have to try to
>find something to damage the impact the speech will have. Apparently
>the best they can come up with is the increased carbon footprint
>thing. Of course they conveniently forget to mention that Mile High
>holds 76,000 people. The Pepsi Center holds about a quarter of that.
>So in fact the carbon footprint, even if it is 4X that of the Pepsi
>Center (which I doubt... no air conditioning needed at Mile High),
Wrong.
> is
>moot since it holds 4X the people. The "carbon footprint" per person
>would be identical. Or are they saying that because 4x the number of
>people will see Obama then there will be 4x the carbon footprint. In
>that case the only thing Barry could do would be to give his
>acceptance speech in his living room to Michelle and the girls.
The simple fact - yes, fact - is that much like Live Earth, the decision
to do the speech in a stadium versus the convention center is another
example of, to quote those well-known right-wing conservatives Roger
Daltrey and Pete Townsend, "private planes for climate change"...
For all the burying of balloons in compost heaps and organic, union-made
bags, there is at least one inconvenient truth: that this thing is gonna
have a disproportionate environmental impact. And all of the partisan
politics anyone wants to spout isn't gonna alter that...
H _T_ H,
R
>
>
>hth
>
>
>Geo. C.
daytripper
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:59:36 -0500, George Cleveland
><georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I guess what I don't understand is what was so bad about the Dems
>>trying to find something for there freebies that wouldn't come back
>>and be used against them by the Rovians. Is there something wrong
>>about American made fanny packs? If they had been made in China it
>>would have been on Rush's show the next day as an example of how
>>hypocritical the Dems are.
>
>Well, of course it would. But the issue is not really what Limpdick
>might or might not have made of it, its about talk versus action. A
>whole pack of Dem pols pay all sorts of lip service to "being green"
>(ala Gore) while not personally doing shit about it if it impinges upon
>their personal lives in a detrimental way.
ahahahahahahahahaha! What drivel!
>> And make no mistake about it. The Repubs are desperate. Take, for
>>example, Richard's huge "carbon footprint" of Mile High as opposed to
>>the Pepsi Center. McCainites know that Obama giving a speech in that
>>venue was a masterpiece of political staging.
>
>Er, nope.
Um, yup.
>>So they have to try to
>>find something to damage the impact the speech will have. Apparently
>>the best they can come up with is the increased carbon footprint
>>thing. Of course they conveniently forget to mention that Mile High
>>holds 76,000 people. The Pepsi Center holds about a quarter of that.
>>So in fact the carbon footprint, even if it is 4X that of the Pepsi
>>Center (which I doubt... no air conditioning needed at Mile High),
>
>Wrong.
Actually, right.
>> is
>>moot since it holds 4X the people. The "carbon footprint" per person
>>would be identical. Or are they saying that because 4x the number of
>>people will see Obama then there will be 4x the carbon footprint. In
>>that case the only thing Barry could do would be to give his
>>acceptance speech in his living room to Michelle and the girls.
>
>The simple fact - yes, fact - is that much like Live Earth, the decision
>to do the speech in a stadium versus the convention center is another
>example of, to quote those well-known right-wing conservatives Roger
>Daltrey and Pete Townsend, "private planes for climate change"...
Nonsense. Nice non sequitur, though.
>For all the burying of balloons in compost heaps and organic, union-made
>bags, there is at least one inconvenient truth: that this thing is gonna
>have a disproportionate environmental impact. And all of the partisan
>politics anyone wants to spout isn't gonna alter that...
Um, nope.
/daytripper (But thanks for making your agenda even more clear...)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
Oh, I gotta ask - what's my agenda?
Hee-hee,
R
sned...@msn.com
Dave, See? There you go. You are so out of the loop that you are not
aware that the Prez' own former press secretary has confirmed that the
betrayal came from the highest levels at the White House, and that the
White House pardoned Libby AFTER he was convicted on charges brought
by Bush's own Justice Department, AND that the White House is
currently defying the law by refusing to let people testify. You need
to update your stuff Dave.
But that still doesn't explain why you ignore all that other stuff.
You know . . . "...steal, get caught, betray American intelligence
officers, sell arms to our enemies, cavort with male prostitutes,
shoot each other in the face, cook the books, cheat on their spouses,
lie under oath, etc etc etc" Not to mention the spending levels and
lack of clean books that have real Conservatives outraged?
Its like you made a mistake and you just cannot admit it to anyone,
not even yourself. Got to move on man, learn from our mistakes, Clean
up the messes we make, or at least not get in the way with defeatist
attitudes. The Country will go on long after we leave.
As to your dick slam . . . look Chief, that crap may have worked years
ago with your recruits, but like Im saying, you need to update your
shit. Get well.
Dave
Dave LaCourse
wrote:
>Yeah, nothing could be worse than than organized workers trying to make
>management deal fairly with them.
Gee, it wonderful the way 90% of Americans get along quite well
without unions and their corruption. Look up the word "merit".
Dave
(up very early getting ready to pick up Riverman)
Dave LaCourse
>But that still doesn't explain why you ignore all that other stuff.
>You know . . . "...steal, get caught, betray American intelligence
>officers, sell arms to our enemies, cavort with male prostitutes,
>shoot each other in the face, cook the books, cheat on their spouses,
>lie under oath, etc etc etc"
David, you have just described the Clinton administration. Where was
your outrage when he was fuckin' all of us with his bimbos,
corruption, stealing, lying, cavorting with *interns*? If he was a
corporate CEO, he'd still be in jail.
Ahhh, but certain idealogies are ok, right?
Hope you are well.
Dave
George Cleveland
Yep I'm as corrupt as they come.
Geo. Cleveland
Chief Steward
Local 77-P GCC/IBT
Yeah thats right, I'm a Teamster too.
Kevin Vang
georgec...@nospam.msn.com says...
> Yep I'm as corrupt as they come.
>
>
> Geo. Cleveland
> Chief Steward
> Local 77-P GCC/IBT
Me too.
Kevin Vang
NDPEA AFT (AFL-CIO)
--
Kevin Vang
reply to kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu
sned...@msn.com
Now we are going to diss unions? Why don't you diss weekends then.
Without unions the American worker wouldn't have weekends, or social
security, or workman's compensation, or a minimum wage. Countries
without unions are all dictatorships or kleptocracies of one ideology
or another. Without unions this country would have gone communist in
the 1930s. I kept a union card even when I owned the business in part
for the memory of an uncle I never knew because he was beaten to death
by company goons in a Virginia textile strike.
David M. Snedeker
Formerly Local 2112 Carpenters AFLCIO
And formerly AFSME
daytripper
Obviously, to adorn every bunny with a pancake...
/daytripper (so far, so good ;-)
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
Buckwheat?
>/daytripper (so far, so good ;-)
The pancakes, not the bunnies.
HTH,
R
...although..."buckwheat bunnies"...hmmm...naw, that sounds like some
strange kid's cereal...or the waitresses at Don King's strip joint...but
OTOH...crepes lapin...sort of a bunny burrito...
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
<georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 05:03:46 -0400, Dave LaCourse
><dplac...@pirateaol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 02:41:23 GMT, Tim Lysyk <timl...@telus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, nothing could be worse than than organized workers trying to make
>>>management deal fairly with them.
>>
>>Gee, it wonderful the way 90% of Americans get along quite well
>>without unions and their corruption. Look up the word "merit".
>>
>>Dave
>>(up very early getting ready to pick up Riverman)
>>
> Yep I'm as corrupt as they come.
>
>
>Geo. Cleveland
>Chief Steward
HEY! You can probably answer something I've wondered about: if the
first-class glasses can be left out, why do the coach plastic cups have
to be collected? If they didn't make y'all screw around with that,
you'd have plenty of time to bring me some more Scotch...
Oh, and why do coach seats have to be returned to the upright position?
I mean, it's like, what, 5/8" difference or something...
>Local 77-P GCC/IBT
>
>
>Yeah thats right, I'm a Teamster too.
CO-O-O-OL...so, like, where's Jimmy Hoffa REALLY buried...?
TIA!
R
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>In article <5i0184lr0t12t0em2...@4ax.com>,
>georgec...@nospam.msn.com says...
>
>> Yep I'm as corrupt as they come.
>>
>>
>> Geo. Cleveland
>> Chief Steward
>> Local 77-P GCC/IBT
>
>
>Me too.
At the risk of turning this into Abbott and Costello Go To China, you
too what?
Dave LaCourse
<georgec...@nospam.msn.com> wrote:
>Yep I'm as corrupt as they come.
Didn't mean you, George, but the teamsters and other unions are
nortorious for their corruption at the top. I worked successfully for
15+ years after retiring from the Navy without joining a union, even
though GTE/Sylvania was union. I got my raises the old fashion way -
I earned them.
Dave
Dave LaCourse
Westinghouse plant in East Springfield, just up the street where I
went to grammar school. It seemed like every Christmas (but I am sure
it happened only a couple of times) the union would go on strike.
After Christmas vacation, the teacher would ask us to tell the class
how we spent our vacation and what did we get for Christmas. Half the
class would say that their dad worked for Westinghouse and that they
were on strike, so there was very little money available for Christmas
gifts.
The first time it happened, I asked my dad at dinner that evening what
a union was. He belonged to the Teamsters, not because he wanted to,
but because he *had* to. There was no such thing as a *right to work*
law in those days. He answered me by saying that the union was a
group of corrupt people who earned their money at the expense of those
that belonged to the union. He told me that Westinghouse would be out
on strike for five, six, maybe even eight months, and the poor union
workers would lose all that pay and probably only get a $9.05 cent an
hour raise. It didn't take me long to realize that those poor suckers
would never make back what they lost, but the union officials would
get their pay regardless.
Both of my parents were bluck collar Democrats, but they drew the line
when it came to unions. All my dad had to show for his 40 years as a
member where some safe driving buttons that he wore on his Filson
vest. He was the *only* truck driver in the small company that he
worked for, and never went on strike. Never missed a day being sick
either until he was well into his 60s. He died behind the wheel in
1967 at age 67.
I don't like unions. I have nothing against you, George, but I don't
like unions.
Dave
(Myron and I got drenched on the river today, but we caught lots of
fish. The Rapid has a new fan.)
Dave LaCourse
>Now we are going to diss unions?
Nice transition, Dave, from the corrupt Clinton administration to my
dislike for unions. There was a time and place for unions, but like
running boards and buggy whips, they are from another life.
Dave
Kevin Vang
dplac...@pirateaol.com says...
I think the time is right for unions to make a huge comeback.
Big business has made it abundantly clear over the last ten,
twenty years that they don't give a rat's ass about their
employees. That, and Dubya and his crew have made certain
that the Republicans will be treated like lepers for the
forseeable future.
Kevin
hee heeee!
Dave LaCourse
wrote:
>hee heeee!
Who hee heeee?
Unions are on their way out. Thankfully fewer and fewer people are
unionistas.
haa haaaa ho hum
Dave
sned...@msn.com
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:18:19 -0700 (PDT), snedek...@msn.com wrote:
> >Now we are going to diss unions?
>
> Nice transition, Dave, from the corrupt Clinton administration to my
> dislike for unions. There was a time and place for unions, but like
> running boards and buggy whips, they are from another life.
>
> Dave
Actually I moved on to your union stuff because it is obvious that you
have stopped reading newspapers, near as I can tell probably a couple
of years ago. I just didn't want to embarrass you.
Lots of things have happened in the meantime Dave. But if you can come
up with some actual names of people in the Clinton administration who
were indited for stealing lets hear it. And if someones of the
Clintonites divulged the names of covert CIA intell agents lets hear
them. Ditto for face shooters, inviters of gay male prostitutes into
the White House, the $16 billion missing from the first planeloads of
greenbacks into Iraq, cooking the intell, muzzling of EPA/FDA/NOA etc
scientists, etc etc. Lets hear the names, even a few if you actually
know some. Face it, all ya got is a couple of unfortunate blow jobs
by one smart cracker who, despite his dick fixation, was a damn good
manager.
Besides, its not about Clinton any more. Its about Obama and McCain
now; two honorable men both of whom appear to me to be a whole lot
better than the incompetent toad you supported. Instead of being
relieved the country will have a chance to dig its way out of the mess
WE ALL put it in, you seem focused on pretending that the last 7 years
of cluster fuck didn't happen. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Dave
Janice
<349c0243-87a5-4cb0...@x36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
sned...@msn.com wrote:
> Actually I moved on to your union stuff because it is obvious that you
> have stopped reading newspapers, near as I can tell probably a couple
> of years ago. I just didn't want to embarrass you.
>
> Lots of things have happened in the meantime Dave. But if you can come
> up with some actual names of people in the Clinton administration who
> were indited for stealing lets hear it. And if someones of the
> Clintonites divulged the names of covert CIA intell agents lets hear
> them. Ditto for face shooters, inviters of gay male prostitutes into
> the White House, the $16 billion missing from the first planeloads of
> greenbacks into Iraq, cooking the intell, muzzling of EPA/FDA/NOA etc
> scientists, etc etc. Lets hear the names, even a few if you actually
> know some. Face it, all ya got is a couple of unfortunate blow jobs
> by one smart cracker who, despite his dick fixation, was a damn good
> manager.
You forgot that when cheney shot the guy witnesses have come forward and
said he had been drinking, and the SS shielded him from police, which
sounds like obstruction of justice. Muzzling of scientists? The head
of one of the agencies to protect the environment was a lawyer for the
TIMBER industry and came up with the idea of counting hatchery salmon as
wild salmon. This when he worked for the timber industry to screw over
the environment, and our pussy of a president hires him to head a job
that overseas PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT!!
What was the price of gas at the end of the CLinton Presidency? I
remember it to be about $1.99. What was our deficit? What is the price
of gas now? It is $4.65 where I am. The deficit is not even counting
replacing all the weapons we are using, the future medical costs,
disability for all the troops who have ptsd.
Our pussy of a president spent %40 of his time on vacation before 9/11.
WHAT INCOMPETENCE! Our retard of a president has no idea what the
middle east is about, what the fighting is about, who is fighting who,
and HE BRAGS ABOUT IT.
GOD SAVE US AND GO BACK IN TIME AND GIVE THE PRESIDENT who liked to have
his dick sucked a third term.
gregat...@fastmail.fm
> In article
> <349c0243-87a5-4cb0-9eba-e47edb18a...@x36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Our pussy of a president spent %40 of his time on vacation before 9/11.
> WHAT INCOMPETENCE! Our retard of a president has no idea what the
> middle east is about, what the fighting is about, who is fighting who,
... while paying protection money to Iraqis who were killing
Americans a year ago...
Peaceful Bill
>
>
> What was the price of gas at the end of the CLinton Presidency? I
> remember it to be about $1.99. What was our deficit? What is the price
> of gas now? It is $4.65 where I am.
What was the price of gasoline before the Democrats took control of the
legislative branch?
Sorry, I hate to confuse the issue with facts.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
"Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
news:ZhLgk.18486$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
If I'm not mistaken, the last Energy Policy Act was in 2005. In that year
the Republicans still controlled both Houses and Bush and Cheney's secret
energy policy group was still in control.
"The 2006 US House election was held on November 7, 2006 to elect members to
the United States House of Representatives. All of the 435 seats in the
House were up for election. Those elected are serving in the 110th United
States Congress from January 3, 2007 until January 3, 2009. The incumbent
majority party, the Republican Party had controlled the house since the 1994
election and was defeated by the Democrats who won a majority in the House
ending 12 years in opposition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005
Yep, the facts will set you free.
I noticed that you didn't ask about the deficit or federal debt during the
during the Clinton years. Why not?
Op
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Peaceful Bill
The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy policy.
And "secret" energy policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!
Peaceful Bill
Here's what the Democrats are doing about high gas prices....
Lawmakers Could Consider Gas Tax Hike, After Gas Tax Holiday Fails
Saturday, July 19, 2008
WASHINGTON — The political vision of a summer gas tax holiday died
a quick death in Congress, losing to a view that federal excise taxes on
gasoline and diesel fuel — far from dropping — will have to go up if
they go anywhere.
Despite calls from the presidential campaign trail for a Memorial
Day-to-Labor Day tax freeze, lawmakers quickly concluded — with a prod
from the construction industry — that having $9 billion less to spend on
highways could create a pre-election specter of thousands of lost jobs.
Now, lawmakers quietly are talking about raising fuel taxes by a
dime from the current 18.4 cents a gallon on gasoline and 24.3 cents on
diesel fuel.
The fuel taxes go into the Highway Trust Fund, which is used for
road construction and repair and mass transit. Depriving the 52-year-old
Highway Trust Fund of $9 billion at a time when it is heading into the
red doomed the notion of a gas tax holiday in Congress.
The nonpartisan National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue
Study Commission concluded in a report this year that the U.S. needs to
spend $225 billion annually over the next 50 years to create a highway
and transit system capable of sustaining strong economic growth. Current
spending, at federal, state and local levels, is about $90 billion a year.
The American Road & Transportation Builders Association is calling
for a 10-cent-a-gallon raise and indexing the tax to inflation. With
construction costs soaring because of competition for building materials
from China and other developing nations, the tax rate would have to be
about 29 cents a gallon to achieve the same purchasing power as the
18.4-cent rate imposed in 1993, the association says.
Including state and local levies, people in the U.S. pay about 47
cents on average in taxes for a gallon of gasoline. Fuel in many
European countries costs $8 to $9 a gallon, with half or more of that
going to taxes.
During the debate over the proposed gas tax holiday, the chairman
of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Rep. James
Oberstar, and the chairman of the highway subcommittee, Rep. Peter
DeFazio, presented fellow lawmakers with a list of how many jobs and how
much money each state would lose if the holiday were to pass. It ranged
from $30 million and 1,000 jobs in Vermont to $664 million and 23,000
jobs in California.
"Because the trust fund is already looking at a looming shortfall,
it would have moved project cancellations into the construction season,"
DeFazio, D-Ore., said in an interview. He said it was "highly unlikely"
that oil companies would have passed savings along to consumers.
Just three years ago, that trust fund enjoyed a surplus of $10
billion. Even without a tax freeze, the fund is projected to finish 2009
with a deficit of $3 billion. That could grow as Americans drive less
and buy less gas because of higher pump prices.
The consequence is that only about $27 billion in federal money
will be available next year to states and local governments for new
infrastructure investment even though the current highway act calls for
spending $41 billion a year. For many, the solution is to raise rather
than suspend or cut federal fuel taxes, which haven't changed since 1993.
The Transportation Construction Coalition, a group of industry
companies and unions, said that if Congress does not do something about
the shortfall, states will lose about one-third of their road and bridge
money in the budget year starting Oct. 1. That would put 485,000 more
jobs at risk.
That message carried the day this summer. But now Congress has the
bigger task of dealing with the short-term deficit crisis in the fund
and coming up with a new spending plan, including revisiting the gas tax
issue, when the current six-year, $286 billion highway-transit act
expires in September 2009.
Senate Democrats in May tried to add $5 billion to an aviation
overhaul bill to replenish the highway trust fund next year; Republicans
objected. Democrats tried again in June, but this time for $8 billion;
Republicans objected to that, too.
Congress should first reduce spending on pet projects, known as
earmarks, argued Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. "I'm not going to let the
Senate spend all this money when nobody is looking, especially when we
refuse to stop wasting billions of taxpayer dollars on earmarks."
Oberstar, D-Minn., said his committee is working on the next
long-term highway bill. He estimated it will take between $450 billion
and $500 billion over six years to address safety and congestion issues
with highways, bridges and transit systems.
"We'll put all things on the table," Oberstar said, but the gas tax
"is the cornerstone. Nothing else will work without the underpinning of
the higher user fee gas tax."
At the very least, the gas tax should be indexed to construction
cost inflation, DeFazio said.
Among other revenue-raising possibilities, the commission
recommended gradually increasing the current federal fuel taxes to 40
cents a gallon.
Other ideas that will be on the table when lawmakers write a bill
next year including more toll roads and public-private partnerships,
congestion pricing and user fees where drivers pay a tax based on how
many miles they drive.
Janice
Peaceful Bill <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy policy.
>
> And "secret" energy policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!
The dems have done a lot: Get a president in office who will get us out
of Iraq which will decrease the strife in the region, decreasing oil
prices. Guess what will happen if your
retarded-rode-to-school-on-the-small-bus President nukes Iran? Gas will
dramatically increase.
Democrats should be chastised greatly for not doing the obvious, which
republicans would agree with: mainly decreasing the amount of blends
from the 30 or so down to say 2. Or even only one, take the most
stringent one and have everyone use.
Peaceful Bill
> In article <a7Ngk.12983$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Peaceful Bill <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
>> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy policy.
>>
>> And "secret" energy policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!
>
> The dems have done a lot: Get a president in office who will get us out
> of Iraq which will decrease the strife in the region, decreasing oil
> prices. Guess what will happen if your
> retarded-rode-to-school-on-the-small-bus President nukes Iran? Gas will
> dramatically increase.
>
Yeah, that's going to happen. LOL!!!
> Democrats should be chastised greatly for not doing the obvious, which
> republicans would agree with: mainly decreasing the amount of blends
> from the 30 or so down to say 2. Or even only one, take the most
> stringent one and have everyone use.
What would the Dems do? How about raise taxes on gasoline just when the
country is looking for relief. Yeah, that's what we need!! MORE TAXES!!!
If congress passes this, the Dems don't have a chance in November:
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
What exactly do you expect them to do, when you have the energy specialists
in the white House?
> And "secret" energy policy?
So I take it that you have the transcripts of Cheney's special energy
meetings with all of the top oil execs?
>ROTFLMAO!!!!
Insanity has been known to cause that to happen weak minded people.
Dave LaCourse
<beau...@charter.net> wrote:
>Insanity has been known to cause that to happen weak minded people.
The poor *soles*.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
This is too funny. You post a FAUXNEWS report, in its entirety, when you
could have simply posted a link. What were you ashamed to give credit to the
actual source? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,386643,00.html
Let me guess, McBush is calling for another gimmick to try and draw support
from illiterate lemmings like yourself?
Peaceful Bill
> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
> news:a7Ngk.12983$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
>>> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ZhLgk.18486$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> I noticed that you didn't ask about the deficit or federal debt during
>>> the during the Clinton years. Why not?
>>>
>>> Op
>>>
>>>
>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>
>> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
>> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy
>> policy.
>
> What exactly do you expect them to do, when you have the energy specialists
> in the white House?
>
They were voted into office on the [failed] promise that they would
correct the problems brought on by the Bush administration. But they
have failed to actually do anything. Their motto seems to be "Its
better to bitch than to actually do something."
But now they want to raise gasoline taxes!! Sure, that's a great way to
handle higher gasoline prices. Raise gas taxes and hand over the 2008
election to the Repubs.
Peaceful Bill
Are you saying the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from
the disaster the Dems are proposing?
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
>> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
>> news:a7Ngk.12983$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
>>>> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ZhLgk.18486$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>>>
>>>> Yep, the facts will set you free.
>>>>
>>>> I noticed that you didn't ask about the deficit or federal debt during
>>>> the during the Clinton years. Why not?
>>>>
>>>> Op
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
>>>
>>> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
>>> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy
>>> policy.
>>
>> What exactly do you expect them to do, when you have the energy
>> specialists in the white House?
>>
>
> They were voted into office on the [failed] promise that they would
> correct the problems brought on by the Bush administration. But they have
> failed to actually do anything. Their motto seems to be "Its better to
> bitch than to actually do something."
I agree that the Dems have done very little to change much of anything that
Bush's admin. and the Republicans have created. Both parties are full of
liars and corrupt shit bags. However, the Dems pale in comparison to the
Repubs when it come to destroying this nation! Personally, I worry much more
about my individual freedoms than I do the price of gas, at present.
I vote third party, btw.
> But now they want to raise gasoline taxes!! Sure, that's a great way to
> handle higher gasoline prices. Raise gas taxes and hand over the 2008
> election to the Repubs.
It remains to be see how much of a federal transportation tax hike they
might consider, or even if they consider one in the immediate future. One
thing is certain though. Gas prices jumped from $1.46 a gallon when Bush
took office to its present price of over $4.00 a gallon in most parts of
America today. That's a $2.54 a gallon increase in less thatn 8 years. It
took us over 100 years to get to $1.46 a gallon no matter which party
controlled both Houses and the White House.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
Why would you ask that? I never stated or implied such.
>Or are you trying to deflect from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
The Dems could hardly fuck things up any worse than the previously
Republican controlled House, Senate and the Bush Admin. but I'm sure they
will give it a yeomans effort!
Let's assume that the Memorial Day to Labor Day tax freeze had passed. The
federal tax rate on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. I'm gonna be generous and
assume that you would fill-up with 30 gallons of gas 15 times from May 26th
thru Sept. 1. You would recognize a total of $82.80 over 3 months. Or $5.52
each fill-up. If that $82.80 is gonna break you, I suspect that you need a
grreat deal more than a tax break to mend your financial woes. I further
suggest that you likely make considerably more than I do--I am a state
employee--electrician and I don't make squat.
Give the bastards a chance, you'd do it for that moron Bush.
daytripper
<snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>
>Are you saying the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from
>the disaster the Dems are proposing?
"disaster"?
The Republicans have run this country into the deepest financial ditch in its
history - your great grandchildren will still be paying off the TRILLIONS of
dollars of debt they've kited - and you call a ten cent per gallon tax to
provide for the national infrastructure - that the same Republican nitwits
ignored while they controlled Congress - a "disaster"?
Forget the national debt, forget the thousands of Americans killed while Shrub
slept at the switch, forget the thousands of Americans killed in an
unnecessary war, forget the banking crisis, forget the housing crisis, forget
the climbing unemployment rate, forget the undermining of the EPA, forget the
undermining of the FDA, but let's call a dime a gallon tax to fix crumbling
highways, tunnels and bridges a "disaster".
Idiot.
/daytripper (who didn't realize anyone could drink *that* much Kool-Aid)
Peaceful Bill
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:18:02 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>> Are you saying the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from
>> the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>
> "disaster"?
>
> The Republicans have run this country into the deepest financial ditch in its
> history - your great grandchildren will still be paying off the TRILLIONS of
> dollars of debt they've kited - and you call a ten cent per gallon tax to
> provide for the national infrastructure - that the same Republican nitwits
> ignored while they controlled Congress - a "disaster"?
The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by
the Democrats.
>
> Forget the national debt, forget the thousands of Americans killed while Shrub
> slept at the switch, forget the thousands of Americans killed in an
> unnecessary war, forget the banking crisis, forget the housing crisis, forget
> the climbing unemployment rate, forget the undermining of the EPA, forget the
> undermining of the FDA, but let's call a dime a gallon tax to fix crumbling
> highways, tunnels and bridges a "disaster".
>
> Idiot.
>
> /daytripper (who didn't realize anyone could drink *that* much Kool-Aid)
And why is there a housing / mortgage crisis? Banking crisis? Were
those a result of laws passed during the Clinton administration to make
it easier to get mortgage loans? Just what was the origin of the
sub-prime crisis?
Unemployment rate is about the same during the Clinton administration
when they claimed that 4.5% was full employment.
What undermining of the EPA? Do you mean creating sensible rules in
which to live and operate? Undermining the FDA? Do you mean getting
potentially helpful drugs to the needy in a more timely manner?
Flat-earth imbecile.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
> daytripper wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:18:02 -0500, Peaceful Bill
>> <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>>> Are you saying the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from
>>> the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>>
>> "disaster"?
>>
>> The Republicans have run this country into the deepest financial ditch in
>> its
>> history - your great grandchildren will still be paying off the TRILLIONS
>> of
>> dollars of debt they've kited - and you call a ten cent per gallon tax to
>> provide for the national infrastructure - that the same Republican
>> nitwits
>> ignored while they controlled Congress - a "disaster"?
>
> The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by the
> Democrats.
Please provide proof--actual facts--that support this laughable assertion.
>> Forget the national debt, forget the thousands of Americans killed while
>> Shrub
>> slept at the switch, forget the thousands of Americans killed in an
>> unnecessary war, forget the banking crisis, forget the housing crisis,
>> forget
>> the climbing unemployment rate, forget the undermining of the EPA, forget
>> the
>> undermining of the FDA, but let's call a dime a gallon tax to fix
>> crumbling
>> highways, tunnels and bridges a "disaster".
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> /daytripper (who didn't realize anyone could drink *that* much Kool-Aid)
>
> And why is there a housing / mortgage crisis? Banking crisis? Were those
> a result of laws passed during the Clinton administration to make it
> easier to get mortgage loans? Just what was the origin of the sub-prime
> crisis?
I'd say it's greed unregulated among a very protected group and that both
parties are to blame, but you seem hell bent to blame Clinton and his admin.
before you know the simplist of facts. And what banking crisis are you
speaking of?
> Unemployment rate is about the same during the Clinton administration when
> they claimed that 4.5% was full employment.
Too funny! Umm considering that the unemployment rate was at 7.4% when
Clinton took over after daddy Bush, and it was down to 4.0% by the time he
left office in 2000. Excepect for a hangover period after daddy Bush left
office in which the rate continued to climb for a period--to a high of 7.8%
in June of '92--before Clinton's economic policies took effect, the rate
dropped steadily over the next 7 years.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt
> What undermining of the EPA? Do you mean creating sensible rules in which
> to live and operate?
So breathing and drinking water aren't high on your list of living
standards? Not that I'm surprised mind ya.
>Undermining the FDA? Do you mean getting potentially helpful drugs to the
>needy in a more timely manner?
Please support this claim! Hell the poor and elderly were and likely still
are driving across the border to Canada to gain access to reasonably priced
meds! And a slew of med have been pull in the last 7 years due to falsified
or poor testing standards.
> Flat-earth imbecile.
Flat-head Moron!
thu...@takeoutgti.net
> The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by
> the Democrats.
Peaceful Bill
Read the statement again:
The CAUSE for most of the debt are the entitlement programs CREATED by
the democrats.
These entitlement programs consume more than half the U.S. budget.
Peaceful Bill
Because you attacked the source and attacked me for posting it ("Let me
guess, McBush", "illiterate lemmings like yourself"... etc.). So you
are implying that the there must be some kind of credibility problem
with the source.
Are you saying that the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect
from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>
>> Or are you trying to deflect from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>
> The Dems could hardly fuck things up any worse than the previously
> Republican controlled House, Senate and the Bush Admin. but I'm sure they
> will give it a yeomans effort!
>
> Let's assume that the Memorial Day to Labor Day tax freeze had passed. The
> federal tax rate on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. I'm gonna be generous and
> assume that you would fill-up with 30 gallons of gas 15 times from May 26th
> thru Sept. 1. You would recognize a total of $82.80 over 3 months. Or $5.52
> each fill-up. If that $82.80 is gonna break you, I suspect that you need a
> grreat deal more than a tax break to mend your financial woes. I further
> suggest that you likely make considerably more than I do--I am a state
> employee--electrician and I don't make squat.
Tell that to the guy who has a long commute.
>
> Give the bastards a chance, you'd do it for that moron Bush.
>
> Op
Bush has proven that he has the Midas Touch. Everything he touches
turns into a muffler. I'm hoping his "to do" list is very short.
The "bastards" (your description) could do worse and plan to do so.
Raising taxes in the middle of a slowdown is the best way to kill what
is left of the economy.
Peaceful Bill
> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
> news:EHTgk.7062$vn7....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> Democrats.
>
> Please provide proof--actual facts--that support this laughable assertion.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/
Entitlement programs eat up more than half the budget.
>
>> And why is there a housing / mortgage crisis? Banking crisis? Were those
>> a result of laws passed during the Clinton administration to make it
>> easier to get mortgage loans? Just what was the origin of the sub-prime
>> crisis?
>
> I'd say it's greed unregulated among a very protected group and that both
> parties are to blame, but you seem hell bent to blame Clinton and his admin.
> before you know the simplist of facts. And what banking crisis are you
> speaking of?
The banking crisis was referenced by previous poster in this thread.
"daydripper" is it?
Both parties are to blame. Not just Clinton, but he's a pretty easy target.
>
>> What undermining of the EPA? Do you mean creating sensible rules in which
>> to live and operate?
>
> So breathing and drinking water aren't high on your list of living
> standards? Not that I'm surprised mind ya.
Where is it in this country (not China, India, Japan or Thailand) were
the air is unbreathable? What city water supplies don't pass drinking
water standards?
>
>> Undermining the FDA? Do you mean getting potentially helpful drugs to the
>> needy in a more timely manner?
>
> Please support this claim! Hell the poor and elderly were and likely still
> are driving across the border to Canada to gain access to reasonably priced
> meds! And a slew of med have been pull in the last 7 years due to falsified
> or poor testing standards.
In the last 7 years? That means that they were developed, tested and
released more than 7 years ago. During the previous administration.
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
Yes they were the brainchildren of socially responsible Dems, as were child
labor laws, 8 hour workdays and many other policies and programs that have
helped to make our nation one of the most productive nations in the history
of mankind. So what's your beef?
Now would you be willing to give up your social security, medicare, and
medicaid, as a magnanimous jesture of course?
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
Attacking the sources credibility is far from saying the report is/was
false. And yes I am saying that there is an enormous credibility problem
with FAUXNEWS--the same as I would much of what is presented by Keith
Olbermann on MSNBC, or by Bill O' Reilly. I good entertainment to many, but
short on hard new info.
> Are you saying that the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect
> from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>
>
>>
>>> Or are you trying to deflect from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>>
>> The Dems could hardly fuck things up any worse than the previously
>> Republican controlled House, Senate and the Bush Admin. but I'm sure they
>> will give it a yeomans effort!
>>
>> Let's assume that the Memorial Day to Labor Day tax freeze had passed.
>> The federal tax rate on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. I'm gonna be
>> generous and assume that you would fill-up with 30 gallons of gas 15
>> times from May 26th thru Sept. 1. You would recognize a total of $82.80
>> over 3 months. Or $5.52 each fill-up. If that $82.80 is gonna break you,
>> I suspect that you need a grreat deal more than a tax break to mend your
>> financial woes. I further suggest that you likely make considerably more
>> than I do--I am a state employee--electrician and I don't make squat.
>
> Tell that to the guy who has a long commute.
>
>>
>> Give the bastards a chance, you'd do it for that moron Bush.
>>
>> Op
>
> Bush has proven that he has the Midas Touch. Everything he touches turns
> into a muffler. I'm hoping his "to do" list is very short.
I say those that voted for such a complete idiot, got what they deserve from
him and all associated with him.
> The "bastards" (your description) could do worse and plan to do so.
I doubt it but we will see when Obama take office.
> Raising taxes in the middle of a slowdown is the best way to kill what is
> left of the economy.
I guess it depends on which taxes and how much of an increase. Only time
will tell.
Peaceful Bill
>
>
> Now would you be willing to give up your social security, medicare, and
> medicaid, as a magnanimous jesture of course?
>
> Op
I would have been more interested in managing my own finances rather
than turning them over to congress to mismanage.
Peaceful Bill
And yet you still fail to answer the question: Are you saying the
report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from the disaster the
Dems are proposing?
>
>> Are you saying that the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect
>> from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>>
>>
>>>> Or are you trying to deflect from the disaster the Dems are proposing?
>>> The Dems could hardly fuck things up any worse than the previously
>>> Republican controlled House, Senate and the Bush Admin. but I'm sure they
>>> will give it a yeomans effort!
>>>
>>> Let's assume that the Memorial Day to Labor Day tax freeze had passed.
>>> The federal tax rate on gas is 18.4 cents per gallon. I'm gonna be
>>> generous and assume that you would fill-up with 30 gallons of gas 15
>>> times from May 26th thru Sept. 1. You would recognize a total of $82.80
>>> over 3 months. Or $5.52 each fill-up. If that $82.80 is gonna break you,
>>> I suspect that you need a grreat deal more than a tax break to mend your
>>> financial woes. I further suggest that you likely make considerably more
>>> than I do--I am a state employee--electrician and I don't make squat.
Putting additional taxes on gasoline attacks the poor, not those who can
easily pay for it. Its a TERRIBLE idea.
And increasing any taxes during an economic downturn is not the way to
turn the economy around. Its the best way to drive it into collapse.
>
> I say those that voted for such a complete idiot, got what they deserve from
> him and all associated with him.
And yet, the best the Dems could not defeat him with their best
candidates. That doesn't say much for their choice of candidates. It
doesn't say much for their pool of talent.
>
>> The "bastards" (your description) could do worse and plan to do so.
>
> I doubt it but we will see when Obama take office.
"When"? That's hardly a done deal. And with his position in favor of
moving troops from Iraq to Afgan, he's losing support from the anti-war
groups he used to have on his side. That very seriously hurt his
credibility.
But both Obama and McCain are terrible candidates. The question is
which one will do the least damage.
>
>> Raising taxes in the middle of a slowdown is the best way to kill what is
>> left of the economy.
>
> I guess it depends on which taxes and how much of an increase. Only time
> will tell.
No! ANY increase in taxes or new taxes will hurt the economy. Period.
We can't take money out of the hands of those who would pull the
economy out of this slowdown.
>
> Op
>
daytripper
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his
morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging
liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow
of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take
because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that
they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan
because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical
insurance - now Joe gets it too.
He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to
eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat
packing industry.
In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly
labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because
some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his
body and how much it contained.
Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is
clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to
stop industries from polluting our air.
He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his
government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in
parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for
affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be
a contributor.
Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical
benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal
union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer
pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to
call the union.
If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker
compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think
he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some
bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless
liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined
the banking system before the Great Depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market
federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the
government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over
his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally
subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.
Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm
home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the
safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car
safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.
He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the
house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want
to make rural loans.
The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck
his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on
Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking,
cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe
wouldn't have to.
Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show.
The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are
good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against
every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We
don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a
self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just
like I have."
Ken Fortenberry
I couldn't bring myself to snip a single word.
A CLASSIC !!
--
Ken Fortenberry
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
You whiney assed liberal shit-maggot :~^ )
Op
"daytripper" <day_t...@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6d984p4p35hiu6p5...@4ax.com...
Janice
Peaceful Bill <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> daytripper wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:18:02 -0500, Peaceful Bill
> > <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> >> Are you saying the report is false? Or are you trying to deflect from
> >> the disaster the Dems are proposing?
> >
> > "disaster"?
> >
> > The Republicans have run this country into the deepest financial ditch in
> > its
> > history - your great grandchildren will still be paying off the TRILLIONS
> > of
> > dollars of debt they've kited - and you call a ten cent per gallon tax to
> > provide for the national infrastructure - that the same Republican nitwits
> > ignored while they controlled Congress - a "disaster"?
>
> The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by
> the Democrats.
That is why after Clinton we had a balanced budget and with bush and
republicans we are trillions in debt? DAMN YOU ARE A RETARD!
Janice
thu...@TAKEOUTgti.net wrote:
Damn that is one heck of a big spike during bush/reagan and another
spike during bush 2. Stays steady then drops during Clinton. Shows
what a ignorant fool Peaceful Bill is.
Janice
Peaceful Bill <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> Janice wrote:
> > In article <a7Ngk.12983$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > Peaceful Bill <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
> >> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy policy.
> >>
> >> And "secret" energy policy? ROTFLMAO!!!!
> >
> > The dems have done a lot: Get a president in office who will get us out
> > of Iraq which will decrease the strife in the region, decreasing oil
> > prices. Guess what will happen if your
> > retarded-rode-to-school-on-the-small-bus President nukes Iran? Gas will
> > dramatically increase.
> >
>
> Yeah, that's going to happen. LOL!!!
Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Ring a bell?
>
>
> > Democrats should be chastised greatly for not doing the obvious, which
> > republicans would agree with: mainly decreasing the amount of blends
> > from the 30 or so down to say 2. Or even only one, take the most
> > stringent one and have everyone use.
>
> What would the Dems do? How about raise taxes on gasoline just when the
> country is looking for relief. Yeah, that's what we need!! MORE TAXES!!!
>
> If congress passes this, the Dems don't have a chance in November:
That is why it wont happen. Reduce the amount of blends to a single
blend, the most stringent, or 2 or 3. Possibly make a law to regulate
to reform big oil from strategically taking refineries off line ON
PURPOSE to decrease supply and increase demand, which big oil documents
have shown them to do.
Peaceful Bill
Anybody can reduce a deficit by raising taxes. Congress creates new
programs, funds them with higher taxes. New administration comes in and
can't get the programs killed. But to help provide a little relief to
those who actually EARN the money, they reduce taxes. Hopefully this
relief stimulates the economy to help offset the reduction in taxes.
But instead of controlling or trying to reduce spending, congress
increases spending and increases the deficit.
The idea is to let the people who actually make the money to KEEP what
they earn. Its not for income redistribution through higher taxes.
Tom Littleton
> The idea is to let the people who actually make the money to KEEP what
> they earn. Its not for income redistribution through higher taxes.
you didn't read one word of what daytripper wrote, did you, Bill?? Idiot.
Tom
Tom Littleton
if RDean isn't enjoying himself immensely over the direction this thread has
taken, I would be surprised<g>
Tom.
daytripper
<snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote:
>Anybody can reduce a deficit by raising taxes. Congress creates new
>programs, funds them with higher taxes. New administration comes in and
>can't get the programs killed. But to help provide a little relief to
>those who actually EARN the money, they reduce taxes.
Yup - and your Republican Congress did exactly that with "The Bush Tax Cuts" -
which were directed at the very top financial stratum of society, while those
in the other 95% were invited to pound sand and carry more weight.
>Hopefully this relief stimulates the economy to help offset the reduction in taxes.
Look around you. Did it work? ahahahahahahaha!
>But instead of controlling or trying to reduce spending, congress
>increases spending and increases the deficit.
And that was your Republican Congress as well...
/daytripper (another reason they'll be packing their bags come January)
sned...@msn.com
wrote:
> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
> > "Peaceful Bill" <snails.p...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
> >news:a7Ngk.12983$LG4....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
> >>>news:ZhLgk.18486$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> >>> Yep, the facts will set you free.
>
> >>> I noticed that you didn't ask about the deficit or federal debt during
> >>> the during the Clinton years. Why not?
>
> >>> Op
>
> >>> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**
>
> >> The topic was gas prices. So what have the Dems done about the gas
> >> prices? The dems certainly have had time to put together an energy
> >> policy.
>
> > What exactly do you expect them to do, when you have the energy specialists
> > in the white House?
>
> They were voted into office on the [failed] promise that they would
> correct the problems brought on by the Bush administration. But they
> have failed to actually do anything. Their motto seems to be "Its
> better to bitch than to actually do something."
>
> But now they want to raise gasoline taxes!! Sure, that's a great way to
> handle higher gasoline prices. Raise gas taxes and hand over the 2008
>
> - Show quoted text -
The interesting thing about your comments is that each day that passes
more and more of the Neocon slogans that pose as adult thinking, drop
off the Republicrat Spin Card. You are left with mouthing the RNCs
default whine equivalent of "so's your Moma," or Dave's "Clinton made
me do it," or Dean's near coon jokes. Why don't you switch off Rush,
Fox and the rest of the hate America crowd, and listen a bit more to
what McCain and some of the other responsible Republicans who are
reclaiming the traditional moderate and conservative stance of the
party are saying. I admit you might have to listen a bit more
carefully but you will quickly realize that the ground is shifting
away from the screaming wing-nut radicals back to a Republican party
that advances environmental protection and considers the American
working person and family farmers in its policies. You might also
start to understand that the Democratic Party has also shifted toward
the center, and, who knows, you might even open up to fairly
considering both honorable men running for the Presidency, aside from
whether they have an "R" or a "D" next to their name. Good luck
Dave
daytripper
Of course he didn't. His tiny head would have exploded.
btw, I can't take any credit for that tome, other than its timely repost.
Someone posted it years ago (in another group, iirc) and I thought it was
brilliant enough to capture for safe keeping and inevitable future use :-)
If I could give proper attribution, I certainly would. Whomever wrote it
deserves some major kudos...
/daytripper
daytripper
>
>if RDean isn't enjoying himself immensely over the direction this thread has
>taken, I would be surprised<g>
I don't think he much cares about direction, I think he gets off on duration.
Witness how many words it takes for him to convey the simplest of thoughts...
/daytripper (and I do mean *simplest*)
sned...@msn.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bill, I also want to point out that there is a connection between the
stubborn, dead-ender, "No good taxes," "No role for government,"
sloganeering that has passed for the failed Bush agenda these past few
years, and the incompetence, waste and overall failure of the Bush
Presidency. The connection is this:
If we elect an administration that hates government, to run our
government, is it any mystery that they are incompetent at the
business of running an efficient government? And what your crowd did,
for example in Iraq, was to send in a bunch of 20-something rightwing
nerds, fresh out of the college Young Republican Clubs to run the
occupation and reconstruction. As a result they didn't have the
whiskers or the business knowledge to set up proper accounting and
were no match for the war profiteers and so, well you know the rest of
the story. What a fucking mess. Shall we talk about the dozens of
other messes created by the structural failure of the wing-nuts to
develop a competent cadre of public sector managers?
Would you fly on a plane piloted by a pilot who hated airplanes? I
don't think I would.
Dave
Opus--Mark H. Bowen
> Opus--Mark H. Bowen wrote:
>> "Peaceful Bill" <snail...@highspeedturtles.net> wrote in message
>> news:EHTgk.7062$vn7....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>
>>> The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by
>>> the Democrats.
>>
>> Please provide proof--actual facts--that support this laughable
>> assertion.
>
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10609044/
>
> Entitlement programs eat up more than half the budget.
"The cause for most of the debt are the entitlement programs created by
the Democrats." (your words)
You are mixing apples and oranges. The federal budget and the National Debt
are two different things. Federal borrowing is running up the federal
debt--whether it is leaving Treasury Securities in the Social Security Fund
or selling Treasury Securities to the Japanese, Chinese, English, or all
others.
Here's a website with a nice easy to read pie-chart showing who owns what
portion of our nation's debt--as or June 2007.
http://www.optimist123.com/optimist/2007/08/an-800-billion-.html
This is quite informative as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
"the biggest holder of Treasury debt was the U.S. government itself, with
about 52 percent of the total $8.5 trillion in paper that's out there. Most
of the government’s holdings are massive savings accounts for programs like
Social Security and Medicare." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/
One of the "mandatory spending" programs that you might call an entitlement
is
"interest on National Debt--9% of budget.
Yes, Social Security is 21% of budget--but it is fully funded, except that
both parties tend to rob form it
and leave Treasury Securities as IOUs.
Medicare and Medicaid/SCHIP is about 7.2% of the budget--part of Medicare
pays for itself and part doesn't.
Then there's Unemployment, Welfare and other mandatory spending at about
11.2% of
the budget.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/fy2008budget/p/2008_Mandatory.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fy2008spendingbycategory.png
Now which of these useless programs are you willing to do away with? We
could simply stop paying on the National Debt--of course we could say
goodbye to the American way of life as we know it. Perhaps we could rescind
the Unemployment Compensation Tax--of course then anyone who lost their job
would have to steal, rob, or pillage their way to a better life. We could
could rescind the Social Security taxation system--but then all of those
poor people paying a few extra cents a gallon for gas wouldn't really need
any gas as they would simply waste away. You know these are the folks that
didn't quite make it educationally or were too lazy to find high paying
positions as CEOs, or maybe they were just unfortunate entrepreneurs and
small business folks that fell on hard times. Nonetheless, let them eat
cake, right! I know, why don't we rid ourselves of that pesky Medicare and
Medicaid/SCHIP--I mean, old people need to die anyway, and if they're dead
they won't need any medications and the children who are provided for by
SCHIP can scrounge for healthcare the best they know how, right.
OOOOOHHH NOOOOOO Mr. Bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>> And why is there a housing / mortgage crisis? Banking crisis? Were
>>> those a result of laws passed during the Clinton administration to make
>>> it easier to get mortgage loans? Just what was the origin of the
>>> sub-prime crisis?
>>
>> I'd say it's greed unregulated among a very protected group and that both
>> parties are to blame, but you seem hell bent to blame Clinton and his
>> admin. before you know the simplist of facts. And what banking crisis are
>> you speaking of?
>
> The banking crisis was referenced by previous poster in this thread.
> "daydripper" is it?
So you took it an ran with it? I suspect 'trippers referent to the "banking
crisis" was a bit overblown, but I have been wrong before. Yes, some of the
larger banks are experiencing difficulties due to the subprime debacle, but
I wouldn't portray such as a banking crisis. Again, I'm a mere electrician
and far from an economist, but I reports of the demise of America's banks is
greatly exaggerated. However:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/TheNextBankingCrisisOnTheWay.aspx
http://www.247wallst.com/2008/02/signs-point-to.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=banking+crisis%2B2008&btnG=Google+Search
I could be wrong.
> Both parties are to blame. Not just Clinton, but he's a pretty easy
> target.
>
>>
>>> What undermining of the EPA? Do you mean creating sensible rules in
>>> which to live and operate?
>>
>> So breathing and drinking water aren't high on your list of living
>> standards? Not that I'm surprised mind ya.
>
> Where is it in this country (not China, India, Japan or Thailand) were the
> air is unbreathable? What city water supplies don't pass drinking water
> standards?
http://tinyurl.com/6qghho
https://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2005.asp
http://lungaction.org/reports/stateoftheair2005.html
http://www.takebackthepower.net/congress/regulations/issue_areas/enviro_protections/articles.cfm?ID=8368
Enjoy the reading, it's really very sad.
>>
>>> Undermining the FDA? Do you mean getting potentially helpful drugs to
>>> the needy in a more timely manner?
>>
>> Please support this claim! Hell the poor and elderly were and likely
>> still are driving across the border to Canada to gain access to
>> reasonably priced meds! And a slew of med have been pull in the last 7
>> years due to falsified or poor testing standards.
>
> In the last 7 years? That means that they were developed, tested and
> released more than 7 years ago. During the previous administration.
What has development got to do with *approval*? Approval was under the Bush
Admins. watch.
Weakening regulatory agencies--reduced funding--and stripping agencies of
their regulatory authority has been the bread and butter of the Bush
Administration and the Republican controlled Congress.
Personally, I'll pay higher taxes to preserve my air and water quality. YMMV
though.
Kiyu
>Damn that is one heck of a big spike during bush/reagan
One of the reasons I supported Reagan were his words during his first
presidential campaign:
"The greatest threat to America today is the national debt."
Of course I assumed he was going to reduce it. Silly me.
I googled to confirm the exact wording and found this.
http://www.geocities.com/thereaganyears/economicpolicy.htm
Odd how we forget what actually happened during those years and are
willing to accept the bs fed to us by the right wing.
The up side is he was one of the reasons I broke with over 200 years
of family right wing tradition and have not supported a nut case
since.
Kiyu
rdean3...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
>
>if RDean isn't enjoying himself immensely over the direction this thread has
>taken, I would be surprised<g>
>
> Tom.
>
I've not read it all, and probably won't, but the one thing I do find
amusing with all of the little right vs. left "debates" involving folks
in the US firmly entrenched in one camp or the other is that they seem
to actually believe that their one guy (of the moment) is the sole
salvation of the planet and the other one guy (of the moment) is the
sole cause of all the problems of the planet...ah, well, those who don't
know history are doomed to repeat it...again and again and again...
TC,
R
Kevin Vang
snail...@highspeedturtles.net says...
> > So breathing and drinking water aren't high on your list of living
> > standards? Not that I'm surprised mind ya.
>
> Where is it in this country (not China, India, Japan or Thailand) were
> the air is unbreathable?
>
I'm guessing that referring you to a book is probably pissing in the
wind, but here goes:
http://tinyurl.com/5gqx3o
Perhaps it will be easier for you if get an overweight Vicodin addict
to read it to you over AM radio.
Kevin,
who does admire the dude's ability to take a beating from the clue bat.
--
Kevin Vang
reply to kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu
Janice
rdean3...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> I've not read it all, and probably won't, but the one thing I do find
> amusing with all of the little right vs. left "debates" involving folks
> in the US firmly entrenched in one camp or the other is that they seem
> to actually believe that their one guy (of the moment) is the sole
> salvation of the planet and the other one guy (of the moment) is the
> sole cause of all the problems of the planet...ah, well, those who don't
> know history are doomed to repeat it...again and again and again...
>
> TC,
> R
And I am SO fearing the day when we get a president who reduces the
deficit, cleans the air, cleans the water, has $1.60 gallon gasoline,
but lets 22 year old women give him blow jobs and lies about it. OH THE
HUMANITY! Lieing about receiving a blow job!
Lets instead have a 3 time convict (isnt that called a 3 time loser?),
blow up the deficit by trillions, increase gas almost 3 fold, kill
thousands of US young adults because of a lie. You want to lie about
getting a blow job? Fine! Want to Lie to get thousands of our young
killed and ruin the economy? WHich party supports which?