Re: Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!!
Robert Coe
wrote:
: Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed Obama
: getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
:
: <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
Er, Rita, it's November 4. You're going to be damned embarrassed if you show
up to vote on the 5th!
Bob
phil-new...@ipal.net
| Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed Obama
| getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
|
| <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
Is 1024x768 the maximum for the D3? Or is the true full size image hidden?
--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
> they are going down.
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>
Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
around". Take a look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's
sake, learn the definition of the various -isms such as communism,
socialism, and Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that
people will be yelling racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley
and his "effect"? Well, come November 5th, you'll be wailing about
the NObama Effect.
--
HP, aka Jerry
NOT Marxism "To each according to his needs, from each according to
his abilities" - Karl Marx from "The Communist Manifesto"
NOT Hate such as "No, no, no, not God Bless American, God DAMN
America" - Rev. Jeremy Wright
NOT hate such as Black Libaration Theology as easpoused by James
Cone
But -- No Way, No How, No Marxism, NObama!
HEMI-Powered
jour ...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>
>>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
>>> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
>>> they are going down.
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>
>> Er, Rita, it's November 4. You're going to be damned
>> embarrassed if you show up to vote on the 5th!
>
> You didn't get the notice on your door? They moved the
> Democratic voting to the 5th for minorities, so the scam goes.
> This was on CNN, there actually was a notice being sent
> around.
>
> <http://beltwayblips.com/story/phony_virginia_flier_tells_dems_
> to_vote_november_5/>
>
November 5 is when all the dumb asses that ACORN registered will
attempt to vote. YOu know, like Mickey Mouse, all the members of
the Dallas Cowboys voting in Ohio, that dumb black teenager who
took money to register himself 73 times, things like that. But, no
matter how many fake voters NObama and ACORN manage to register,
Hussein is still going to lose, and really, really big time.
Bill
wrote:
>Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
>> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
>> they are going down.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>
>Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
>Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
>the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
>around". Take a look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's
>sake, learn the definition of the various -isms such as communism,
>socialism, and Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that
>people will be yelling racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley
>and his "effect"? Well, come November 5th, you'll be wailing about
>the NObama Effect.
Man, you are one rabid yellow dog republican.
Barak is not a socialist as claimed, However I would much rather live
in a Socialist state than the Nazi state that Bush and his right wing
cronies are creating.
I Assume by self reliant taxpayer, you mean the independantly wealthy.
I earn well below $200,000 a year and don't have a problem with his
tax proposals. Although, I would much rather see him leave the tax
rates alone and eliminate all of the loopholes that allow the
corporations and wealthy to pay little or no taxes at all.
Despite his claim as a "maverick", McCain has not shown that he is any
different than GW, in taking away citizen's rights and rewarding
corporations for maximizing their profits by offshoring jobs at
poverty level wage rates and screwing the American public.
Furthermore, any chance that Palin might end up running this country
sends shivers down my back. Her knowledge of foreign policy and the
constitution is about on par with a fifth grader. With her in power,
we'd probably be owned by China before we could blink.
James
> Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed
>> Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>
> Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet. Hussein
> NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in the entire
> country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth around". Take a
> look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's sake, learn the
> definition of the various -isms such as communism, socialism, and
> Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that people will be yelling
> racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley and his "effect"? Well, come
> November 5th, you'll be wailing about the NObama Effect.
I wish I could agree with you but alas there will be no landslide loss
for Obama. McCain is not much better then Obama except taxes will stay
low which is the only reason i can think of to vote for him.
Who I would like to see in office is Ron Paul but there is one major
issue with him ( and libertarian platform of which I am ) is the
isolationist they would like us to become.
I am a commercial electrician and we are already bracing for Obama. The
company I work for taxes will go up under Obama plus all the other
increases he has planned. We figure to be laid off after the current jobs
are done in spring. This is because A lot of companies of put off
expanding till after they see who wins the election. Fear of not being
able to turn a decent profit for the next four years has many business
nervous to say the least.
Like it or not its the drive to make as much money as possible that keeps
"ALL" of us working. The ability to make a profit affects us all in some
form. Companies can not just raise prices for goods and services since it
would soon cost more then what people can or are willing to pay. No
expansion means no new and or better jobs.
With the banking disaster caused by crappy loans and home owners that
should never have bought the homes in the 1st place the country can not
afford a bigger tax burden now.
Its sad to see the Dems always wanting to soak the rich knowing that the
end result is a dead economy. This looks to be what they want in order to
create their own version of utopia.
I am still not sure if I will even vote this time ( president wise) I
dislike both candidates and can not do the lesser of two evils vote any
more after voting in Bush the 1st time but not the second.
Keep your eye on the construction industry. The slower it gets is a tell
tale sign on how stagnate the economy is becoming.
Jim
Bob
says...
> In rec.photo.digital Rita Berkowitz <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> | Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed Obama
> | getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
> |
> | <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>
> Is 1024x768 the maximum for the D3? Or is the true full size image hidden?
rita downsizes nikon file to 'full resolution'.
the rest of us just laugh at her.
D3 is 4256x2832.
rita just likes little files.
>
>
George Kerby
On 11/1/08 5:43 PM, in article
DtOdnb8hXYKodpHU...@supernews.com, "Rita Berkowitz"
<ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed Obama
> getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
And, Rita, let me add that you make *sure* that you go out and vote that
day!
George Kerby
On 11/1/08 8:59 PM, in article hm5qg4tnjglsqun65...@4ax.com,
"Robert Coe" <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
SHHHHHHH! Let "her" figure that out for himself, OK? DAMMIT!
George Kerby
On 11/2/08 8:02 AM, in article 1rbrg4tpkui9puvkp...@4ax.com,
"Bill" <carver...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:01:04 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn>
> wrote:
>
>> Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
>>> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
>>> they are going down.
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
>> Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
>> the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
>> around". Take a look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's
>> sake, learn the definition of the various -isms such as communism,
>> socialism, and Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that
>> people will be yelling racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley
>> and his "effect"? Well, come November 5th, you'll be wailing about
>> the NObama Effect.
>
>
>
> yap, yap, yap, yappidy, yap, yap...
Robert Coe
: November 5 is when all the dumb asses that ACORN registered will
: the Dallas Cowboys voting in Ohio, that dumb black teenager who
: took money to register himself 73 times, things like that. But, no
: matter how many fake voters NObama and ACORN manage to register,
: Hussein is still going to lose, and really, really big time.
The most straightforward explanation for your gibbering is that you are deep
in denial. I suspect, though, that you are actually an Obama supporter and are
merely trying to pull Rita's chain. ;^)
Bob
Robert Coe
: On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:01:04 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn>
: wrote:
:
: >Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
: >jour ...
: >
: >> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
: >> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
: >> they are going down.
: >>
: >> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
: >>
: >Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
: >Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
: >the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
: >around". Take a look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's
: >sake, learn the definition of the various -isms such as communism,
: >socialism, and Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that
: >people will be yelling racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley
: >and his "effect"? Well, come November 5th, you'll be wailing about
: >the NObama Effect.
:
:
: Man, you are one rabid yellow dog republican.
I don't think Jerry's the Obama opponent he claims to be; he's just teasing
Rita. Notice that he doesn't try to say anything good about John McCain.
: Barak is not a socialist as claimed, However I would much rather live
: in a Socialist state than the Nazi state that Bush and his right wing
: cronies are creating.
:
: I Assume by self reliant taxpayer, you mean the independantly wealthy.
: I earn well below $200,000 a year and don't have a problem with his
: tax proposals. Although, I would much rather see him leave the tax
: rates alone and eliminate all of the loopholes that allow the
: corporations and wealthy to pay little or no taxes at all.
:
: Despite his claim as a "maverick", McCain has not shown that he is any
: different than GW, in taking away citizen's rights and rewarding
: corporations for maximizing their profits by offshoring jobs at
: poverty level wage rates and screwing the American public.
:
: Furthermore, any chance that Palin might end up running this country
: sends shivers down my back. Her knowledge of foreign policy and the
: constitution is about on par with a fifth grader. With her in power,
: we'd probably be owned by China before we could blink.
I don't know where you went to school, but by the time my classmates and I got
out of the 5th grade, we knew a lot more about the Constitution than Sally
Trailerpark does.
Bob
Casual Observer
What makes you think China doesn't already own America? Take a look at the
current trade deficit and Chinese and other foreign investments in the US.
We've been screwed for years already.
"Bill" <carver...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1rbrg4tpkui9puvkp...@4ax.com...
Ray Fischer
>November 5 is when all the dumb asses that ACORN registered will
>attempt to vote.
There are two outright lies in that sentence. The first is that ACORN
registered people to vote. People are only allowed to register
themselves, even if an organization can provide assistance. The
second lie is that the fake people will actually vote. There is no
evidence that registrations filled in solely to get money from ACORN
will ever be used to cast a ballot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
>> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
>> they are going down.
>>
>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>
>Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
>Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
>the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
>around".
In fact it is McCain who is advocating wealth redistribution. In the
last few decades the top 1% wealthiest people in the country have gone
from owning 8% of the country to owning 20% of the country, and McCain
wants to continue that process by cutting taxes for the wealthy even
further.
Why anybody who isn't part of that 1% would vote for such a policy I
do not know. Stupidity? Gullibility?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:01:04 -0600, HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
>> Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>> ...
>>
>>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed
>>> Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet. Hussein
>> NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in the entire
>> country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth around". Take a
>> look at my sig, go read some history, and for God's sake, learn the
>> definition of the various -isms such as communism, socialism, and
>> Marxisms. NObama is going to lose SO huge that people will be yelling
>> racist for decades. Ever heard of Bradley and his "effect"? Well, come
>> November 5th, you'll be wailing about the NObama Effect.
>
>I wish I could agree with you but alas there will be no landslide loss
>for Obama. McCain is not much better then Obama except taxes will stay
>low which is the only reason i can think of to vote for him.
Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted
has led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is
better than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Robert Coe
I think you're quite wrong. I predict that the stock market will go up
dramatically on an Obama victory and that American business generally will
breathe a sigh of relief. The Market is greedy and elitist, but it isn't
stupid. The Capitalist Establishment knows that the Republicans have all but
destroyed the nation's economy, and enlightened self-interest is causing them
to put aside their natural Republican inclinations. An Obama victory will be
very good, not bad, for the economy.
Ron Paul? I think he'll vote for Barack.
Full disclosure: I have been a registered Republican continuously since 1958.
Bob
James
> Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted has
> led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is better
> than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
It was not the lower taxes that got us where we are it was the
uncontrolled spending from both parties that got us here along with banks
giving credit to those who should never have gotten it.
Get the politicians to actually cut spending and stop creating new things
to spend money on and it right its self pretty fast.
Jim
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted has
>> led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is better
>> than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
>
>It was not the lower taxes that got us where we are it was the
>uncontrolled spending from both parties that got us here along with banks
>giving credit to those who should never have gotten it.
That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed for
ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their spending.
Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies that mostly
benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>Get the politicians to actually cut spending and stop creating new things
>to spend money on and it right its self pretty fast.
Trite propaganda and patently untrue. The current state of the
federal budget is such that it is no longer possible to cut spending
sufficiently to balance the budget. If you think otherwise then cite
half a trillion dollars in spending that could be cut. This will get
you started:
http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?id=158&gclid=CM2OtMvfr4cCFRt7UAod3zRY-Q
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Only way Obama is going to lose the election is if the Republicans fix the
>election. Not too far fetched since this is how Bush got in. And yes, it
>is racism if he doesn't make it. More whites are voting for Obama than
>blacks.
>
>Well, you better get used to the new look of the Whitehouse. Seems Michelle
>already has the changes all planned out.
>
>The "Home Theater" is going to be stocked with cult classics such as "Sweet
>Sweetback's Baadasssss Song" and many other staples from that era.
>
>Let's not forget the wonderful smells that will be infiltrating the halls
>during the holidays. I hope the head chef is well versed at Southern
>cookin' or else he's history. Nothing more pleasing than waking up to the
>aroma of hog maws, fatbacks, cracklins, and Hoppin' Johns. No healthy meal
>will be complete without a side of collard or mustard greens (I prefer kale
>myself) seasoned with a few hocks followed by some hot peach cobbler.
You really are quite the racist, aren't you? Do you really believe
that a woman who grew up in Illinios would adopt a southern lifestyle
just because she's black?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
tony cooper
<ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>Well, you better get used to the new look of the Whitehouse. Seems Michelle
>already has the changes all planned out.
>
>The "Home Theater" is going to be stocked with cult classics such as "Sweet
>Sweetback's Baadasssss Song" and many other staples from that era.
>
>Let's not forget the wonderful smells that will be infiltrating the halls
>during the holidays. I hope the head chef is well versed at Southern
>cookin' or else he's history. Nothing more pleasing than waking up to the
>aroma of hog maws, fatbacks, cracklins, and Hoppin' Johns. No healthy meal
>will be complete without a side of collard or mustard greens (I prefer kale
>myself) seasoned with a few hocks followed by some hot peach cobbler.
>
People usually prefer the diet they grew up eating. Barak might
prefer poi and roasted pig, and Michelle might put kielbasa and
deep-dish pizza on the menu. Neither grew up with a tradition of
Southern Cooking.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Boskey
> There are two outright lies in that sentence. The first is that ACORN
> registered people to vote. People are only allowed to register
> themselves, even if an organization can provide assistance. The
> second lie is that the fake people will actually vote. >
> --
No that isn't correct, REAL people registered FAKE names! This subject is
part of on-going investigations in some states where ALCORN operates.
Jürgen Exner
>No that isn't correct, REAL people registered FAKE names! This subject is
>part of on-going investigations in some states where ALCORN operates.
Yeah, one of the many idiosyncrasy of the US election process.
This would not be possible in civilized countries because you wouldn't
be able to get passports or ID-cards with fake names in the first place.
Maybe the US does need some UN or EU observers?
jue
Boskey
"Jürgen Exner" <jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:k57sg4l3e0a3bi544...@4ax.com...
Perhaps EU, the UN has way too many problems of their own.
Walter Banks
Ray Fischer wrote:
> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
> >Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
> >jour ...
> >
> >> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
> >> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
> >> they are going down.
> >>
> >> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
> >>
> >Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
> >Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
> >the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
> >around".
>
> In fact it is McCain who is advocating wealth redistribution. In the
> last few decades the top 1% wealthiest people in the country have gone
> from owning 8% of the country to owning 20% of the country, and McCain
> wants to continue that process by cutting taxes for the wealthy even
> further.
Trickle down doesn't work. In the last 8 weeks has been an even more
dramatic example. When the US federal government bailed out financial
institutions they for the most part used it as a revenue source and failed
to
seriously increase the money supply in circulation. Short term the bailout
may have been less painful but the behavior of the bailed out companies
suggests the country may have been better off in the long run by letting
them fail.
w..
tony cooper
You misunderstand. Various organizations - and ACORN is one - place
people in the field to register new voters. There is no requirement
to be qualified to solicit registrations. Some of these people are
volunteer workers, and some are paid workers. The paid workers are
either paid an hourly rate or paid by the number of people they
register.
Many of these volunteer and paid solicitors of registration are not
aware of the requirements for voting, and allow people to register
without showing any identification. The for-pay workers often
knowingly allow people to register multiple times or under false
names.
None of this constitutes vote fraud. Vote fraud can only take place
when a person actually votes. Different states have different rules,
but a person who wants to vote must be (a) registered and (b) have a
photo ID. Prior to voting day, the list of new registered voters is
checked against driver's license records, phone records, and address
records. If they don't appear in these records, they either cannot
vote or their vote is held for further verification. Polling stations
have lists of registered voters who have been verified, and the voter
must be on that list.
The upshot of all of this is that very, very few people who falsely
register will actually be able to vote. A few might slip through due
to negligence of poll station workers, but not many.
Don't confuse registration as the right to vote. Registration is a
*requirement* to vote, but the registrations are verified before the
vote can be cast.
tony cooper
<ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>tony cooper wrote:
>
>>> Let's not forget the wonderful smells that will be infiltrating the
>>> halls during the holidays. I hope the head chef is well versed at
>>> Southern cookin' or else he's history. Nothing more pleasing than
>>> waking up to the aroma of hog maws, fatbacks, cracklins, and Hoppin'
>>> Johns. No healthy meal will be complete without a side of collard
>>> or mustard greens (I prefer kale myself) seasoned with a few hocks
>>> followed by some hot peach cobbler.
>>>
>> People usually prefer the diet they grew up eating. Barak might
>> prefer poi and roasted pig, and Michelle might put kielbasa and
>> deep-dish pizza on the menu. Neither grew up with a tradition of
>> Southern Cooking.
>
>I wouldn't doubt it and I agree with you. As I told Ray, its soul food and
>it isn't that unreasonable to think that most African Americans want to hold
>onto part of their heritage. Sadly, a lot of tradition is being lost to
>Chinese carry-out and Golden Corral.
>
I'm a white, male, northerner-by-birth, and living in a part of the
south that is not in The South. I dearly love certain types of soul
food and Southern Cooking, but it's not out of heritage or tradition.
It's because it's good. Except for okra.
Ray Fischer
>
>
>> There are two outright lies in that sentence. The first is that ACORN
>> registered people to vote. People are only allowed to register
>> themselves, even if an organization can provide assistance. The
>> second lie is that the fake people will actually vote. >
>> --
>No that isn't correct, REAL people registered FAKE names!
Childish quibbling. If there is no person by the stated name then the
person doesn't exist.
> This subject is
>part of on-going investigations in some states where ALCORN operates.
The usual republican dirty tricks.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Let's not forget the wonderful smells that will be infiltrating the
>>> halls during the holidays. I hope the head chef is well versed at
>>> Southern cookin' or else he's history. Nothing more pleasing than
>>> waking up to the aroma of hog maws, fatbacks, cracklins, and Hoppin'
>>> Johns. No healthy meal will be complete without a side of collard
>>> or mustard greens (I prefer kale myself) seasoned with a few hocks
>>> followed by some hot peach cobbler.
>>
>> You really are quite the racist, aren't you? Do you really believe
>> that a woman who grew up in Illinios would adopt a southern lifestyle
>> just because she's black?
>
>Haven't broken bread with any African Americans have you, Ray? Seems the
>people that call "racist" are the true racists. And yes, I really do
>believe she would be adopting the "southern lifestyle" as you put it since
>it is called soul food.
So you really are a racist bigot.
Tsk.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
RichA
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritabe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DtOdnb8hXYKodpHU...@supernews.com...
> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the light-footed
> Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date they are going down.
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>
>
>
> Rita
Jürgen Exner
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:40:24 -0800, Jürgen Exner
><jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>"Boskey" <Whok...@whocares.com> wrote:
>>>No that isn't correct, REAL people registered FAKE names! This subject is
>>>part of on-going investigations in some states where ALCORN operates.
>>
>>Yeah, one of the many idiosyncrasy of the US election process.
>>This would not be possible in civilized countries because you wouldn't
>>be able to get passports or ID-cards with fake names in the first place.
>>
>>Maybe the US does need some UN or EU observers?
>
>You misunderstand.
I don't think so.
>Various organizations - and ACORN is one - place
>people in the field to register new voters. There is no requirement
>to be qualified to solicit registrations. Some of these people are
>volunteer workers, and some are paid workers. The paid workers are
>either paid an hourly rate or paid by the number of people they
>register.
>Many of these volunteer and paid solicitors of registration are not
>aware of the requirements for voting, and allow people to register
>without showing any identification. The for-pay workers often
>knowingly allow people to register multiple times or under false
>names.
Are those volunteers in the employment of the election board or
government voting registration office or similar official institution
and are the sworn in to follow regulations? I don't think so. Then how
come they can register anyone in the first place?
Are you telling me you register with some private club or weekend
volunteer organization to vote for the most powerful government in the
world?
Shouldn't you register with the proper voting office or election board
or whatever agency is running the election? And be only able to register
after providing proper identification and evidence that you are elegible
to vote?
_THIS_ is what I mean with idiosyncracy. The system is broken and it has
nothing to do with ACORN or any other organization. They didn't create
that broken system.
>Don't confuse registration as the right to vote. Registration is a
>*requirement* to vote, but the registrations are verified before the
>vote can be cast.
As I said, idiosyncracies of the US election system.
jue
Bill
>On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:02:04 -0500, Bill <carver...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>: On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 06:01:04 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <no...@none.sn>
>: wrote:
<snip>
>
>I don't know where you went to school, but by the time my classmates and I got
>out of the 5th grade, we knew a lot more about the Constitution than Sally
>Trailerpark does.
>
>Bob
I was going to say third grader, but I was trying to be kind.
Bill
<som...@somewhere.com> wrote:
>
>What makes you think China doesn't already own America? Take a look at the
>current trade deficit and Chinese and other foreign investments in the US.
>We've been screwed for years already.
>
I yhink that we still own a few percent, but the way things are going,
it won't be long before the entire country is owned by foreign
interests.
tony cooper
<jurg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
No. They volunteer, or are paid to, hand out forms that allow a
person to register.
> I don't think so. Then how
>come they can register anyone in the first place?
Because the system allows it.
>Are you telling me you register with some private club or weekend
>volunteer organization to vote for the most powerful government in the
>world?
You said you understand, but you don't. Being registered is a
requirement of voting, but it does not - in itself - allow one to
vote. It is only one of the requirements, and a requirement that must
be verified.
>Shouldn't you register with the proper voting office or election board
>or whatever agency is running the election? And be only able to register
>after providing proper identification and evidence that you are elegible
>to vote?
I don't think so. I'm strongly in favor in of open registration and
going to the people - rather than having the people come to an office
- to register them. Some do go to an office, and some register by
other means. For example, a person can register when renewing their
driver's license in some states.
As long as false registrations are weeded out before the actual voting
occurs, the present system is working. More people are now registered
- legitimately - than ever before, and I think this is a good thing.
>
>_THIS_ is what I mean with idiosyncracy. The system is broken and it has
>nothing to do with ACORN or any other organization. They didn't create
>that broken system.
That's your opinion, and I can tell by the way you phrase it that you
want to believe the system is broken. I have no interest in changing
your opinion, but I do have an interest in at least informing you that
your opinion is based on some misconceptions.
>>Don't confuse registration as the right to vote. Registration is a
>>*requirement* to vote, but the registrations are verified before the
>>vote can be cast.
>
--
tony cooper
<ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
>There you go; it is simply a thing of just enjoying this wonderful food.
>And I'm sure that you also have some tradition seasonal food from your
>ancestral heritage that you love? Hell, I'm not Irish, but I love corned
>beef and cabbage. It's almost time for us to make some Southerm Maryland
>Stuffed Ham!
We are of Irish descent, but corned beef and cabbage is not a
traditional Irish dish. I never saw it on the menu in any place, or
at the home of any of our relatives, in Ireland. Colcannon, yes. Soda
bread, yes. But corned beef and cabbage is like chop suey: a
"national dish" that is not known in the country it's famous for.
George Kerby
On 11/2/08 12:42 PM, in article 490df485$0$33581$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
> HEMI-Powered <no...@none.sn> wrote:
>> Rita Berkowitz added these comments in the current discussion du
>> jour ...
>>
>>> Typical look on most Republican's faces as they hear the
>>> light-footed Obama getting closer to November 5th, the date
>>> they are going down.
>>>
>>> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Open_Ear.htm>
>>>
>> Oh, I wouldn't quite plan your innaugural ball dates just yet.
>> Hussein NObama has pissed off about every self-reliant taxpaper in
>> the entire country with his Marxkist notion of "spread the wealth
>> around".
>
> Stupidity? Gullibility?
I'll give you both...
George Kerby
On 11/2/08 2:19 PM, in article 490e0b42$0$33507$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
You stupid sack of hammered shit, don't you have a brain cell stirring to
see that 'Rita' just knocked that hairball out of your simple gullet?!?
What a maroon!
George Kerby
On 11/2/08 4:07 PM, in article
Z6Kdncxp4O7huJPU...@supernews.com, "Rita Berkowitz"
<ritabe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> Let's not forget the wonderful smells that will be infiltrating the
>>> halls during the holidays. I hope the head chef is well versed at
>>> Southern cookin' or else he's history. Nothing more pleasing than
>>> waking up to the aroma of hog maws, fatbacks, cracklins, and Hoppin'
>>> Johns. No healthy meal will be complete without a side of collard
>>> or mustard greens (I prefer kale myself) seasoned with a few hocks
>>> followed by some hot peach cobbler.
>>
>> You really are quite the racist, aren't you? Do you really believe
>> that a woman who grew up in Illinios would adopt a southern lifestyle
>> just because she's black?
>
> Haven't broken bread with any African Americans have you, Ray? Seems the
> people that call "racist" are the true racists. And yes, I really do
> believe she would be adopting the "southern lifestyle" as you put it since
> it is called soul food. Soul food can be found in any large city that is
> part of the 50-States. An elderly black gentleman that I know from
> Baltimore has a tradition of eating Hoppin' Johns for the holidays, won't
> eat them any other time of year. He doesn't do chitterlings, but loves
> sweet potato pie. Anyway, Ray, grab yourself a nice bowl of kale and enjoy
> yourself. Now stop showing your racist side.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
>
;-)
George Kerby
On 11/2/08 5:18 PM, in article 490e3560$0$33599$742e...@news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote:
Right, ya moron...
James
> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted
>>> has led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is
>>> better than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
>>
>>It was not the lower taxes that got us where we are it was the
>>uncontrolled spending from both parties that got us here along with
>>banks giving credit to those who should never have gotten it.
>
> That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed for
> ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their spending.
> Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies that mostly
> benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>
Again both parties are guilty. How many poor or just average income
politicians are there? It has taken both parties to pass the bills that
increase spending no matter what they say.
>>Get the politicians to actually cut spending and stop creating new
>>things to spend money on and it right its self pretty fast.
>
> Trite propaganda and patently untrue. The current state of the federal
> budget is such that it is no longer possible to cut spending
> sufficiently to balance the budget. If you think otherwise then cite
> half a trillion dollars in spending that could be cut. This will get
> you started:
> http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?
id=158&gclid=CM2OtMvfr4cCFRt7UAod3zRY-Q
Welfare needs to be dismantled and done from scratch so that only those
that really need it get it same for ssi and all the riders that are on
the bills passed should be stopped. if it can not stand on its own then
it has no reason to be spent. The wars are going to keep us down for
years to come no short way out. Its not going to be over night but it
will fix its self. The government can not keep spending more the it takes
in any more then we can.
Another big step is getting rid of all the extra staff in government. I
have an aunt working for the Secretary of interior. only works about 7
months out of a tear. That is a position that can therefore be scrapped
since it runs just fine without her. There are thousands just like that.
Add all the wasted research that goes on to pander to some group that
helped get one elected and there are billions to be saved one nickle at a
time.
It has to be done and we are running out of time to do it.
Jim
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted
>>>> has led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is
>>>> better than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
>>>
>>>It was not the lower taxes that got us where we are it was the
>>>uncontrolled spending from both parties that got us here along with
>>>banks giving credit to those who should never have gotten it.
>>
>> That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed for
>> ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their spending.
>> Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies that mostly
>> benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>>
>Again both parties are guilty.
For the past several decades the biggest deficit have come
from Republican administrations, usually by insisting that the
US military, which already costs as much as the rest of the world's
militaries combined, needs still more money.
> How many poor or just average income
>politicians are there? It has taken both parties to pass the bills that
>increase spending no matter what they say.
And it takes one president to say no.
>>>Get the politicians to actually cut spending and stop creating new
>>>things to spend money on and it right its self pretty fast.
>>
>> Trite propaganda and patently untrue. The current state of the federal
>> budget is such that it is no longer possible to cut spending
>> sufficiently to balance the budget. If you think otherwise then cite
>> half a trillion dollars in spending that could be cut. This will get
>> you started:
>> http://www.askquestions.org/details.php?
>id=158&gclid=CM2OtMvfr4cCFRt7UAod3zRY-Q
>
>Welfare needs to be dismantled and done from scratch so that only those
>that really need it get it same for ssi and all the riders that are on
>the bills passed should be stopped.
That's so trivial as to make no difference at all.
> The wars are going to keep us down for
>years to come no short way out. Its not going to be over night but it
>will fix its self. The government can not keep spending more the it takes
>in any more then we can.
Trite.
>Another big step is getting rid of all the extra staff in government.
That's so trivial as to make no difference at all.
> I
>have an aunt working for the Secretary of interior. only works about 7
>months out of a tear. That is a position that can therefore be scrapped
>since it runs just fine without her. There are thousands just like that.
If there was a MILLION $70,000/year jobs that could be eliminated it
still would be nowhere near enough.
>Add all the wasted research that goes on to pander to some group that
>helped get one elected and there are billions to be saved one nickle at a
>time.
You still do not grasp the problem. The annual deficit is
$450,000,000,000. The debt is $11,000,000,000,000. That's $35,000
for every man, woman, and child in the country. Just paying interest
on that debt consumes one fifth of every tax dollar the federal
government collects. You'd have to cut $1000 in spending for
everybody in the country just to get to the break-even point.
>It has to be done and we are running out of time to do it.
You've already been screwed. Now it's going to hurt for a while.
Sorry.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James
> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>>>> Government taxes may be low, but the ruinous debt that has resulted
>>>>> has led to today's economy and paying more in taxes for services is
>>>>> better than seeing your wages fall and prices go up for nothing.
>>>>
>>>>It was not the lower taxes that got us where we are it was the
>>>>uncontrolled spending from both parties that got us here along with
>>>>banks giving credit to those who should never have gotten it.
>>>
>>> That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed for
>>> ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their spending.
>>> Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies that mostly
>>> benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>>>
The dems have had to ability to stop the spending for the last two years.
They are no better.
>>Again both parties are guilty.
>
> For the past several decades the biggest deficit have come from
> Republican administrations, usually by insisting that the US military,
> which already costs as much as the rest of the world's militaries
> combined, needs still more money.
>
>> How many poor or just average income
>>politicians are there? It has taken both parties to pass the bills that
>>increase spending no matter what they say.
>
> And it takes one president to say no.
And none have done it. It is political suicide since they view thier jobs
is to get reelected not serve the nation.
OH I grasp the problem very well. What I refuse to be is a defeatist
Spending must be redused the country not not continue to take loans to
sustain its self. It's all those trite and trivial things that add up.
You try and live the same way as the government does and you would be
living in a card box in just a few years. The government is no different
except that we all will end up broke and homeless when the system finaly
bankrupts itsself which is an inevitable end. Every financel adviser will
tell you that you can not borrow your way out of debt.
>>It has to be done and we are running out of time to do it.
>
> You've already been screwed. Now it's going to hurt for a while.
>
> Sorry.
I have vasiline incase Obama does raise taxes because it's really gonna
hurt then.
Jim
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed for
>>>> ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their spending.
>>>> Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies that mostly
>>>> benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>
>The dems have had to ability to stop the spending for the last two years.
Bullshit. That would require yanking funding for the war, screwing
over thousands of US troops, and passing a budget which the
republicans would filibuster.
>> For the past several decades the biggest deficit have come from
>> Republican administrations, usually by insisting that the US military,
>> which already costs as much as the rest of the world's militaries
>> combined, needs still more money.
>>
>>> How many poor or just average income
>>>politicians are there? It has taken both parties to pass the bills that
>>>increase spending no matter what they say.
>>
>> And it takes one president to say no.
>
>And none have done it.
Clinton did.
>>>Add all the wasted research that goes on to pander to some group that
>>>helped get one elected and there are billions to be saved one nickle at
>>>a time.
>>
>> You still do not grasp the problem. The annual deficit is
>> $450,000,000,000. The debt is $11,000,000,000,000. That's $35,000 for
>> every man, woman, and child in the country. Just paying interest on
>> that debt consumes one fifth of every tax dollar the federal government
>> collects. You'd have to cut $1000 in spending for everybody in the
>> country just to get to the break-even point.
>>
>OH I grasp the problem very well. What I refuse to be is a defeatist
>Spending must be redused the country not not continue to take loans to
>sustain its self.
Reducing spending will not balance the budget.
> It's all those trite and trivial things that add up.
No, you can add them all up and it still will NOT balance the budget.
>>>It has to be done and we are running out of time to do it.
>>
>> You've already been screwed. Now it's going to hurt for a while.
>>
>> Sorry.
>
>I have vasiline incase Obama does raise taxes because it's really gonna
>hurt then.
Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James
You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of the
money is wasted. Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own lives.
Those who are trully unable to help themselves ( mental and physical
reasons) still recieve help.
Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising them
slows it. Proven over and over again starting wuth JFK's tax plan and
Reagons reuse of it.
The military can't stay at war for ever and when it's over we can reduse
spending to a sustaining level rather then a combat level. It's going to
be a while thou.
So what is your plan? You dismiss every real option but offer nothing.
Jim
Allen
James
> Too bad that you never learned the English language.
And your point is? This is relevent how?
Ray Fischer
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
>
>You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of the
>money is wasted.
I can do the math. It doesn't add up. Most of the federal budget
cannot be cut. What's left isn't enough.
> Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
>1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own lives.
Brutal, aren't you? People dying? Too bad. You're greedy and you
want to keep your money.
>Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising them
>slows it.
Says who? Some of the most prosperous times in US hstory were when
taxes were relatively high. Bush cut taxes seven years ago and the US
is not in a recession.
The reality is that keeping taxes low does NOT, by itself, do anything
for the economy. Indeed, it can actually harm the economy.
What high-school economists never seem to grasp it that there is
nothing wrong with taxes. Inefficiency is what hurts and government
exists to increase efficiency.
>The military can't stay at war for ever and when it's over we can reduse
>spending to a sustaining level rather then a combat level. It's going to
>be a while thou.
>
>So what is your plan? You dismiss every real option but offer nothing.
You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving doesn't count.
The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's almost equal to the
entire military budget. You can't eliminate interest payments on the
debt, you can't eliminate Social Security, and what's left doesn't
amount to all that much.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving doesn't count.
> The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's almost equal to the
> entire military budget. You can't eliminate interest payments on the
> debt, you can't eliminate Social Security,
oh but you CAN eliminate Social Security ... and mark my word,
while it won't actually be eliminated, it WILL be cut, and cut
dramatically. We don't yet know how, but we know why: Social
Security in its present form requires an exponentially expanding
population, at the same expansion rate, forever. This is not going to
happen.
Doug McDonald
HEMI-Powered
but that was BEFORE the passage of an $850B bailout in late
September, the $700B really "needed" plus $150B as a sweetener to
get it passed. That's another one of those silly ass euphemisms
as in "bribes and earmarks". So, the NEW deficit is - Ta, Da! -
something OVER $1.5 TRILLION! And, since much of the War on
Terror is off the books, as is part of Social Security, it is
anybody's guess what the true number will be. Couple that with
using SEC mark-to-market accounting principles to value the
amount of Freddie and Fannie toxic debt you and I took on and it
could balloon the national debt to upwards of $17T by my
calculations.
No, you reall CAN'T cut or eliminate Social Security and
Medicare, at least not and stay in office. Do you really suppose
all the recipients backed by the AARP would just docilly take it
in the ass? Nope. There'd be MASSIVE recall campaigns, charges of
malfeasance and many impeachable offenses and ALL them dudes
voting to cut/kill SS and Med would either get their asses kicked
out very quickly or at least we'd have a brand new bunch of
people in just two years. Social Security and Medicare are by far
the biggest of the political 3rd rails.
Now, the real trick is how to save them and make them fiscally
and actuarily sound. Nobody yet has figured a way past the
reality of cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.
I'd be most interested to hear how you plan to do what you
propose. It isn't that I disagree with your fiscal conclusion -
I'm a BIG fan of David Walker - it's just that I don't know how
to make it happen. But, thankfully, the problem will be left to
my daughter because I'll be dead, likely, by the time the shit
hits the fan, circa 2040.
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> No, you reall CAN'T cut or eliminate Social Security and
> Medicare, at least not and stay in office. Do you really suppose
> all the recipients backed by the AARP would just docilly take it
> in the ass? Nope. There'd be MASSIVE recall campaigns, charges of
> malfeasance and many impeachable offenses and ALL them dudes
> voting to cut/kill SS and Med would either get their asses kicked
> out very quickly or at least we'd have a brand new bunch of
> people in just two years. Social Security and Medicare are by far
> the biggest of the political 3rd rails.
>
> Now, the real trick is how to save them and make them fiscally
> and actuarily sound. Nobody yet has figured a way past the
> reality of cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.
>
Of course it can be saved. But it can't be saved without cutting
benefits. It can't be saved by raising taxes alone, without
an exponential population increase with time (or an exponential
productivity gain versus time, with the same exponent ... and,
barring robots, this cannot happen.)
> I'd be most interested to hear how you plan to do what you
> propose.
I propose it cut benefits or raise the retirement age.
>It isn't that I disagree with your fiscal conclusion -
> I'm a BIG fan of David Walker - it's just that I don't know how
> to make it happen. But, thankfully, the problem will be left to
> my daughter because I'll be dead, likely, by the time the shit
> hits the fan, circa 2040.
I hopefully will be dead sometime about 2040. I'm not worried about
Social Security since I'm not involved with it. I am worried about
the solvency of the Illinois pension system (which is, relatively speaking,
in good shape ... it's still maybe 30% funded and still constitutionally
guaranteed.)
My guess as to the mechanism of collapse: hyperinflation.
Finally ... I just realized that the above contains the "be happy" answer, which actually
is not all THAT farfetched: robots.
I feared Obama because his spouting implied a dedication to "global warming"
that that would destroy productivity. We shall see.
Doug McDonald
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>
>> You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving doesn't count.
>> The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's almost equal to the
>> entire military budget. You can't eliminate interest payments on the
>> debt, you can't eliminate Social Security,
>
>oh but you CAN eliminate Social Security
Nope.
>... and mark my word,
>while it won't actually be eliminated, it WILL be cut, and cut
>dramatically.
And why should I care about your opinion?
> We don't yet know how, but we know why: Social
>Security in its present form requires an exponentially expanding
>population, at the same expansion rate, forever.
It doesn't. That's just more right-wing SS disinformation.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<no...@none.sn> writes
> added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>Medicare, at least not and stay in office.
Actually the problem is worse than that. If you pull social security and
medicare what have this large number (and growing as the recession
bites) number of people got left to loose?
You get civil disorder and complete breakdown of society. Never mind
staying in office it will be staying alive.
I know you have got guns.... so have "they"
The Police and National Guard won't be there... they will be protecting
their own when it al kicks off.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
James
> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>> Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
>>
>>You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of the
>>money is wasted.
>
> I can do the math. It doesn't add up. Most of the federal budget
> cannot be cut. What's left isn't enough.
>
It can be and has to be cut. There a lot of crap attached to every bill
that gets passed that should never be there.
>> Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
>>1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own lives.
>
> Brutal, aren't you? People dying? Too bad. You're greedy and you want
> to keep your money.
>
Well I see there is no reasoning with you since you seem to like to
ignore all of what people say and twist it to fit your leftest thoughts.
Do remember I said those that for mental and physical reasons would
remain covered. I would even cover those that suddenly find them selves
in a tough spot like a parrent leaving the other with the kids. temp
assistance and training to get a better job would be fine. All breeders
for cash cut off. If those that are to lazy to fend for themselves can't
handle life good ridence to them. They are not my problem.
>>Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising them
>>slows it.
>
> Says who? Some of the most prosperous times in US hstory were when
> taxes were relatively high. Bush cut taxes seven years ago and the US
> is not in a recession.
>
Yeah the fact that the banking system made way to many loans that should
never have been made had nothing to do with it. And the fact the the
democrates refused to put tighter restrictions on the lenders does not
either?
The spending on a war we should never have started is a big factor. Both
parties are guilty since they all signed on.
> The reality is that keeping taxes low does NOT, by itself, do anything
> for the economy. Indeed, it can actually harm the economy.
>
If too low I agree but we are not there at this time.
> What high-school economists never seem to grasp it that there is nothing
> wrong with taxes. Inefficiency is what hurts and government exists to
> increase efficiency.
>
Now that is the funniest thing I ever heard and here I thought it was to
SERVE the people. The government has never been effient and never will.
Too many hands out for a chunk of our money for that to happen
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:50:28 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>> Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
>>>
>>>You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of the
>>>money is wasted.
>>
>> I can do the math. It doesn't add up. Most of the federal budget
>> cannot be cut. What's left isn't enough.
>>
>It can be and has to be cut.
Are you sane? Why do you think that you can alter reality with
wishful thinking?
>>> Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
>>>1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own lives.
>>
>> Brutal, aren't you? People dying? Too bad. You're greedy and you want
>> to keep your money.
>>
>Well I see there is no reasoning with you since you seem to like to
>ignore all of what people say and twist it to fit your leftest thoughts.
As opposed to your fascist thoughts?
>Do remember I said those that for mental and physical reasons would
>remain covered.
Which is what we have now. All your whining about "liberals" is not
going to balance any budget.
>>>Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising them
>>>slows it.
>>
>> Says who? Some of the most prosperous times in US hstory were when
>> taxes were relatively high. Bush cut taxes seven years ago and the US
>> is now in a recession.
>>
>Yeah the fact that the banking system made way to many loans that should
>never have been made had nothing to do with it.
When you reduce the size of government you eliminate regulators and
the banks are freer to do as they please.
>> The reality is that keeping taxes low does NOT, by itself, do anything
>> for the economy. Indeed, it can actually harm the economy.
>>
>If too low I agree but we are not there at this time.
But given that you ignore the facts and merely spout propaganda isn't
doing much to convince anybody that you have any clue.
>> What high-school economists never seem to grasp it that there is nothing
>> wrong with taxes. Inefficiency is what hurts and government exists to
>> increase efficiency.
>
>Now that is the funniest thing I ever heard and here I thought it was to
>SERVE the people.
Duh, increasing the efficiency of the economy IS serving the people.
> The government has never been effient and never will.
A stupid lie. Too many right-wing morons have completely bought into
that propaganda. It's part of the right-wing agenda to eliminate the
government that gets in the way of their screwing you, and you're
gullible enough to believe it.
>>>The military can't stay at war for ever and when it's over we can reduse
>>>spending to a sustaining level rather then a combat level. It's going to
>>>be a while thou.
>>>
>>>So what is your plan? You dismiss every real option but offer nothing.
>>
>> You haven't offered any real option. Vague handwaving doesn't count.
>> The deficit is about $450,000,000,000. That's almost equal to the
>> entire military budget. You can't eliminate interest payments on the
>> debt, you can't eliminate Social Security, and what's left doesn't
>> amount to all that much.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
HEMI-Powered
>> I can do the math. It doesn't add up. Most of the federal
>> budget cannot be cut. What's left isn't enough.
>>
> It can be and has to be cut. There a lot of crap attached to
> every bill that gets passed that should never be there.
Nice try, but no cigar. The big hitter are the entitlements -
Social Security and Medicare, mainly the latter. These can be cut
or taxes raised but are a political 3rd rail for anyone who tries.
> The spending on a war we should never have started is a big
> factor. Both parties are guilty since they all signed on.
Yup. But hindsight is always 20/20. The question is where were all
the Far Left Loons when the paper was blank? Oh, yeah, almost
forgot - they voted for the war and the spending also!
>> What high-school economists never seem to grasp it that there
>> is nothing wrong with taxes. Inefficiency is what hurts and
>> government exists to increase efficiency.
>
> Now that is the funniest thing I ever heard and here I thought
> it was to SERVE the people. The government has never been
> effient and never will. Too many hands out for a chunk of our
> money for that to happen
Yes, it is funny in a black humor sort of way. Raising taxes ALWAYS
cuts aggregate revenues, just look back in history for proof.
Ray Fischer
> Raising taxes ALWAYS
>cuts aggregate revenues, just look back in history for proof.
Is that why cutting taxes has led to massive deficits and when Clinton
raised taxes the budget ended up balanced?
You rightards are such suckers for propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
GMAN
Ray Fischer
Only rightards believe that because they are incapable of thinking for
themselves and prefer to blindly swallow propaganda.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
James
> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:50:28 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>> James <nos...@forme.com> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
>>>>
>>>>You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of
>>>>the money is wasted.
>>>
>>> I can do the math. It doesn't add up. Most of the federal budget
>>> cannot be cut. What's left isn't enough.
>>>
>>It can be and has to be cut.
>
> Are you sane? Why do you think that you can alter reality with wishful
> thinking?
>
So oh sane one tell us long we can continue to borrow our way through the
billls?
>>>> Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
>>>>1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own
>>>>lives.
>>>
>>> Brutal, aren't you? People dying? Too bad. You're greedy and you
>>> want to keep your money.
>>>
>>Well I see there is no reasoning with you since you seem to like to
>>ignore all of what people say and twist it to fit your leftest thoughts.
>
> As opposed to your fascist thoughts?
fas·cism Listen to the pronunciation of fascism
Pronunciation:
\ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin
fascis bundle & fasces fasces
Date:
1921
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that
of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a
dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and
forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise
of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army
fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
So now that you know that means please tell me where I have at any time
leaned that way.
>
>>Do remember I said those that for mental and physical reasons would
>>remain covered.
>
> Which is what we have now. All your whining about "liberals" is not
> going to balance any budget.
>
Nope we still have check breeders out there and lots of them. I know a
few ona one is a slut niece.
>>>>Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising
>>>>them slows it.
>>>
>>> Says who? Some of the most prosperous times in US hstory were when
>>> taxes were relatively high. Bush cut taxes seven years ago and the US
>>> is now in a recession.
>>>
>>Yeah the fact that the banking system made way to many loans that should
>>never have been made had nothing to do with it.
>
> When you reduce the size of government you eliminate regulators and the
> banks are freer to do as they please.
Do you actualy believe that if the big banks knew that there would be no
one to bail them out of this mess that they would still have done it?
>
>>> The reality is that keeping taxes low does NOT, by itself, do anything
>>> for the economy. Indeed, it can actually harm the economy.
>>>
>>If too low I agree but we are not there at this time.
>
> But given that you ignore the facts and merely spout propaganda isn't
> doing much to convince anybody that you have any clue.
History has proven me right.
>
>>> What high-school economists never seem to grasp it that there is
>>> nothing wrong with taxes. Inefficiency is what hurts and government
>>> exists to increase efficiency.
>>
>>Now that is the funniest thing I ever heard and here I thought it was to
>>SERVE the people.
>
> Duh, increasing the efficiency of the economy IS serving the people.
>
>> The government has never been effient and never will.
>
> A stupid lie. Too many right-wing morons have completely bought into
> that propaganda. It's part of the right-wing agenda to eliminate the
> government that gets in the way of their screwing you, and you're
> gullible enough to believe it.
>
So what you are saying is that you need the government to protect you
from your own stupidity because you are unable to see you are going to
get screwed BEFORE you go for a deal. You and all those people who bought
homes that they could never afford never read word one of the contract
and blame everybody else but themselves.