Dear Rush
JC
Soliloquy
Payback time for what, his opinions?
My my, this is mighty liberal of you, you're concerned about revenge
against a person that has done nothing against you other than to hold
opinions that are judgmental.
But you are willing to let the people that actually adversely impact your
life to get away with it without a whimper. (let's see, Bill Clinton come
to mind, as does a cavalcade of other corrupt politicians, lying
broadcast show hosts, deceiving doctors, etc.)
As the jobs flow overseas, (yes, yes, Mr. Bush is increasingly to blame
for this as well), as your Rights ebb away under this Patriot act or the
other, as your guns are confiscated, as your health care coverage lapses,
we'll all know that you got your priorities straight because one of the
few things that inspired you to action was taking delight in the
destruction of Rush.
I don't listen to Rush anymore, haven't for many years now. But, and I
have a very big but, (From Pee Wee Herman's movie), if they apply undue
attention to Rush, they need to revisit all of the other politicians,
actors, and sports figures that have been caught up in similar misdoings.
Merry Christmas
> It's payback time!
>
>
>
--
Never say never.
Nothing is absolute.
Billy Bo from 75M
"JC" <N...@none.net> wrote in message
news:7KydnQOB4sj...@pronetisp.net...
> It's payback time!
>
Hope he don't have any McBurgers !!
You can get BSE/CJV from eating McBeef you know!!!!
LW
> It's payback time!
>
Soooo .. what did you have in mind?
He admitted the problem .. he went through treatment .. his ratings
are up a few points .. he's putting a few more million in the bank ..
hasn't he suffered enough already?
Come on JC it's Christmas .. try to have peace on earth and good will
toward your fellow man just for a few days. OK?
RHF
= = = wrote in message news:<7KydnQOB4sj...@pronetisp.net>...
> It's payback time!
One Mite Ask.... Rush Who ?
Or are your talking about the Electronic Media Lynching
for Rush Limbaugh by a DemoCratZy Political Cardre.
SO WHY has Barry E. Krischer the State's Attorney for Palm Beach
County changed the 'focus' of the Investigation from 'actual'
Drug Dealers to the Conservative Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh ?
The original Drug Dealing and Drug Suppliers 'investigation'
began as a probe into the illegal sale of prescription painkillers
in South Florida area that targeted dealers and suppliers.
But investigators came across Rush Limbaugh through clues
gathered in a bust of a Drug Dealer in Palm Beach County this year,
that revealed Rush Limbaugh's name as a possible drug buyer.
During this investigation Rush Limbaugh's former housekeeper
(Wilma Cline) was caught along with her husband (David Cline).
After the Clines were caught, they then 'traded' audio tapes and
eMails that they claimed were from Rush Limbaugh to the police
and was "Granted Immunity from Prosecution". The Clines
are/were in-fact Drug Dealers and evidently had kept records
and evidence on their drug dealing business to 'trade' with
the police, if and when they got caught.
TBL: So now the Clines are FREE of All Drug Dealing Charges [.]
* NOTE: The National Enquirer paid the Clines a six-figure
fee for their story.
* REVELATION: The Clines were Black Mailing Mr. Limbaugh
but the Democrat Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office
that Black Mail is not a Crime if Done for the Right Reasons.
* PLUS: Certain individuals connected with the Palm Beach
County State Attorney's Office and the investigation, have
been providing selected information to the National Enquirer
and other friendly news organizations.
? So the "QUESTION" becomes: WHY did the the Palm Beach County
State Attorney's Office let Wilma and David Cline 'the Drug
Dealers' go Free in exchange for Rush Limbaugh 'the Drug User' ?
Has Barry E. Krischer the State's Attorney for Palm Beach County,
choosen to Go After Rush Limbaugh as a high profile drug user
simply for "Political" Reasons.
* NOTE: Barry E. Krischer (Democrat) is the 'elected' State's
Attorney for Palm Beach County, was a supporter of Bill Clinton's
two presidential campaigns and of Al Gore's presidential run in 2000.
I 'repeat' WHY has Barry E. Krischer the State's Attorney for Palm
Beach County changed the 'focus' of the Investigation from 'actual'
Drug Dealers to the Conservative Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh ?
The Seriousness of the Charges of "Political" Reasons for the
selective 'naming' of Rush Limbaugh 'leaks' of information in
this investigation by Barry E. Krischer the State's Attorney
for Palm Beach County, demand an investigation by the Florida
State Attorney General's Office.
iwtk ~ RHF
.
.
Diverd4777
<inv...@invalid.com> writes:
>
>As the jobs flow overseas, (yes, yes, Mr. Bush is increasingly to blame
>for this as well),
> as your health care coverage lapses,
- So , given the above, Stay Well & travel light
Merry Christmas !
Ken Thomas
house to rescue your cat from a tree that a fire doesn't break out.
Using your logic they should just stand there and let it burn.
RHF
= = = wrote in message news:<99efd$3fe9a4b4$d1cc418b$22...@allthenewsgroups.com>...
BBf75M,
Oh... NO You Can't [.]
Micky "D"s only uses Kangaroo Meat - And Thats A Fact Jack-O !
Why else do so many people say.
Lets Hop Over to Micky "D"s and get something to Eat.
- - -or- - -
Lets Hop In To Micky "D"s and get something to Eat.
jftfoi ~ RHF
.
.
nobody
kk...@aol.com (LW) wrote:
> "JC" wrote >...
> > It's payback time!
> >
>
> Soooo .. what did you have in mind?
>
> He admitted the problem .. he went through treatment .. his ratings
> are up a few points .. he's putting a few more million in the bank ..
> hasn't he suffered enough already?
LOL!
ASW
constructionist than anything.
I really do believe that this whole thing is politically motivated.
As an example, what happened to Brett Farve when he admitted to abusing
prescription drugs? I don't remember anyone requesting his medical records?
And I sure and the hell don't remember any presecutors even "beginning" and
investigation. So Brett Farve along with millions of other people who are
hooked on "scripts" get a pass. (sorry for the pun), but Rush gets leaks to
tabloids, blackmail that is not prosecuted, complete reversal of
investigations, and the special attention of states presecutors. Does not
seem very fair to me. Hell It would be different if Rush was caught with a
bag full of hundreds of pills. But he wasn't.
Ant
Gary Sanford
Stinger
-- Stinger
"ASW" <antwo...@oohay.moc> wrote in message
news:yOpGb.18909$P%1.171...@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
Ken Thomas
record... and >> Rush would take several hundred pills on a weekend -
several hundred - think about it.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 00:20:39 GMT, Gary Sanford <sanf...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
Richard Cranium
> "JC" <N...@none.net> wrote in news:7KydnQOB4sj...@pronetisp.net:
>
> Payback time for what, his opinions?
Ummm, yes. Rush is the moron who said that all drug abusers should be
rounded up and thrown in prison. Are you saying this shouldn't apply
to him? Why? Because he's a media hero and your guru?
> My my, this is mighty liberal of you, you're concerned about revenge
> against a person that has done nothing against you other than to hold
> opinions that are judgmental.
Not just judgemental, absolutely stupid. And payback is a bitch, isn't
it?
> But you are willing to let the people that actually adversely impact your
> life to get away with it without a whimper. (let's see, Bill Clinton come
> to mind, as does a cavalcade of other corrupt politicians, lying
> broadcast show hosts, deceiving doctors, etc.)
Bill Clinton allegedly lied about a blow job. Rush Limbaugh DID lie
about drug abuse. There is a difference, except in dumb conservative
minds, I guess.
> As the jobs flow overseas, (yes, yes, Mr. Bush is increasingly to blame
> for this as well), as your Rights ebb away under this Patriot act or the
> other, as your guns are confiscated, as your health care coverage lapses,
> we'll all know that you got your priorities straight because one of the
> few things that inspired you to action was taking delight in the
> destruction of Rush.
"W" is destroying himself through absolute stupidity. If you can't see
that, you're a stupid as he is.
> I don't listen to Rush anymore, haven't for many years now. But, and I
> have a very big but, (From Pee Wee Herman's movie), if they apply undue
> attention to Rush, they need to revisit all of the other politicians,
> actors, and sports figures that have been caught up in similar misdoings.
I never did, but I know he's a pompous jerk. And always was. But why
would it be "undue" attention? If he's a fraud and a liar, it's
certainly "due" attention. Unless you happen to be a dumbass
"dittohead", of course. Then logic doesn't apply.
> Merry Christmas
Merry pagan winter feast day to you, too.
nobody
richc...@yahoo.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
> Soliloquy <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns945B4ECE26929...@216.168.3.44>...
> > "JC" <N...@none.net> wrote in news:7KydnQOB4sj...@pronetisp.net:
> >
> > Payback time for what, his opinions?
>
> Ummm, yes. Rush is the moron who said that all drug abusers should be
> rounded up and thrown in prison. Are you saying this shouldn't apply
> to him?
No, but the law is. Do you think he should be put in jail for his
opinions?
nobody
Gary Sanford <sanf...@sprynet.com> wrote:
If being an asshole were sufficient grounds for incarceration, most the
the current collection of nobodies trying for the Democratic nomination
would be in jail.
Brenda Ann
"nobody" <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
news:nobody-51C348....@netnews.attbi.com...
> If being an asshole were sufficient grounds for incarceration, most the
> the current collection of nobodies trying for the Democratic nomination
> would be in jail.
Let's not damn with faint praise here... so would most of the current
administration.. but then, I figure that could easily be applied to nearly
every politician on both sides of the spectrum... :)
ASW
In the case of Bill Clinton he obstructed justice, perjured himself, and
tampered with witnesses. Rush obtained prescription drugs illegally,
tampered with witnesses, and probably possesed enormous quantities of
prescription drugs illegally.
I am questioning the application of the law.
Lets face it, anyone of us has broken a multitude of laws, some more serious
than others. It just seems to me that there seems to be a special place in
the heart of most liberals for Rush. My point was that if it were just
about anyone else the prosecutor would have bailed on the case and forgot
it. Your personal attacks against anyone that agrees with Rush just prove
my point.
Lets say that you are the states prosecutor. You would go after him with a
vengeance. Well ok, so be it. How did you feel about Ken Star? Did you
like that? Did you think that was fair?
What I am talking about is the biased use of power. Anytime it used in this
way it is bad. It makes a mockery out of our court systems and makes me
rethink being politically or socially involved. I mean I could get a ticket
for jaywalking because some police officer seen me in a social/public venue
that he/she did not agree with. While at the same time a police man lets a
guy off a speeding ticket because he is wearing a Mason's ring? Don't think
it has happened?
I know it has! (The Mason Ring example that is)
Ant
RHF
"KT" Says (Writes): "Rush would take several hundred pills on a
weekend
- several hundred
- think about it."
OBTW: "KW" I like Your Style: AKA: th "-s" :o)
IRT: Your Statement "KT" - Your NOSE is... G r o w i n g :o)
"Wilma Cline, 42, says Limbaugh was Hooked on the Potent
Prescription Drugs: OxyContin, Lorcet and Hydrocodone"
Source=> http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/122839p-110349c.html
* Hydrocodone
Anti-cough agent and painkiller similar to morphine. Side effects
include anxiety, poor mental performance, emotional dependence,
drowsiness, mood changes, difficulty breathing and itchiness.
* Lorcet
Brand Name for the combination of Tylenol and Hydrocodone,
prescribed for moderate to severe pain. Side effects include
dry mouth, nausea, vomiting, decreased appetite, dizziness,
tiredness, muscle twitches, sweating and itching.
* OxyContin
Potent time-release medication for relief of moderate to severe
pain, known as hillbilly heroin because of black-market popularity
in some rural areas. Side effects include drowsiness, dizziness,
sweating, muscle twitches and decreased sex drive.
TBL: A Large Dose Can Be FATAL.
"The RUSH on Drugs"
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0343/031022_news_limbaugh.php
Once again let us remember "KT" Says (Writes):
"Rush would take several hundred pills on a weekend
- several hundred - think about it."
I Have Thought About It "KT".
Lets get Real Here "KT" Several Hundred of Any One of these Pills
would be a Death Sentence (Life Ending Drug Over Dose) for Anyone [.]
Last Time I Checked: Rush Is Alive !
"Rush Limbaugh Supported Legalizing Drugs in 12 March 1998"
Source=> http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004605.html
"Drug Policy Alliance Urges Rush Limbaugh to Use Power and Influence
to Benefit Hundreds of Thousands of Fellow Addicts Languishing in
Prison"
Source=> http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr1118b03.cfm
"America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude,
- - - Libertarians say"
Source=> http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=652
"Rush Limbaugh Statement on Prescription Pain Medication Stories"
Make-A-Shorter-Link URL-Key=> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X48B313E6
"Rush Limbaugh and the Hypocrisy Smokescreen"
Source=> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1018-04.htm
ssi ~ RHF
= = = So Say I (My Personal Opinons and Beliefs Stated As Facts.)
.
.
= = = Ken Thomas <bermi...@ananzi.co.za>
= = = wrote in message news:<h7fkuvskeq73fpsth...@4ax.com>...
>
> Farve was an asshole for taking that sack so Strahan could get
> the record... and >> Rush would take several hundred pills
> on a weekend - several hundred - think about it.
>
.
- S N I P -
.
Richard Cranium
Since he's the one who said it, Yes, I think it should apply > especially < to him.
<RJ>
Here's a topic for discussion;
it's claimed that;
Rush's houskeeper blackmailed him,
threatening to tell of his addiction
unless he paid her $$$$$.
If you threaten to tell the truth about someone
unless they pay you, is it blackmail ?
Would it be a criminal offense ?
How is it different from extortion ?
If they can prove that she took money to keep quiet,
has she committed a criminal offense ?
further
If she took the cash, then told anyway,
would she be liable in civil court for "breach of contract" ?
????
( it's a slow SW day..... )
<rj>
Stinger
And they said >Rush< was a hypocrite...
This is just too damn funny.
-- Stinger
"Richard Cranium" <richc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c5ecbb69.03122...@posting.google.com...
Stinger
facts won't stop them from spreading this manure.
Next thing the libs will find out that they don't get $5,000 for forwarding
the Disney "e-mail test."
Let them down gently.
-- Stinger
"RHF" <rhf-...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e5e13af8.03122...@posting.google.com...
Stinger
sold-out career politicians ;^)
The term-limit issue needs to be readdressed. They've swept it under the
rug again. We need people that will have to go back to real life and work
under the laws they created when in Congress.
-- Stinger
"Brenda Ann" <bre...@shinbiro.com> wrote in message
news:bsdgb1$lqm$1...@news1.kornet.net...
Michael Bryant
>Wow... "Law and Order" liberals!
>
>
Only a extremist would really believe that one's desire for law and order is
determined by their political perspective.
Stop trolling on Christmas, you moron.
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)
Frank Dresser
[snip]
>
> Once again let us remember "KT" Says (Writes):
> "Rush would take several hundred pills on a weekend
> - several hundred - think about it."
>
> I Have Thought About It "KT".
> Lets get Real Here "KT" Several Hundred of Any One of these Pills
> would be a Death Sentence (Life Ending Drug Over Dose) for Anyone [.]
>
> Last Time I Checked: Rush Is Alive !
It's probably not worth checking out, but I did anyway. I couldn't find
the lethal dose of oxycodone, but I did find something on heroin. Just
for the sake of arguement, let's say the lethal doses are similar:
Depending on purity and the user, a lethal dose of heroin may range from
200 to 500mg, but hardened addicts have survived doses of 1800mg and
over."
This is from:
http://www.drug-overdose.com/heroin.htm
So how much oxycodone is in each oxycontin pill?
"It is supplied in 10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, and 160 mg tablet
strengths for oral administration."
The website says the 40 mg pills are the most commonly abused.
Oxycontin, unlike heroin, is a time release drug.
"Taking broken, chewed, or crushed tablets could lead to the rapid
release and absorption of a potentially toxic dose of oxycodone."
These quotes are from:
http://www.stopoxycontinaddiction.com/oxycontin-pill.htm
I'll assume Rush wasn't chewing or grinding and snorting the pills.
The original poster didn't support his claim, but hundreds of pills in a
weekend aren't inconceiveable. It would take a fistful of 10 mg
oxycontin pills to have the kick that one 160 mg pill has. I suppose
Rush might have been managing the opiate side effects with other drugs.
Elvis did. Rush might have been downing vitamins and minerals and other
stuff the way bodybuilders and the health food crowd do.
>
> "Rush Limbaugh Supported Legalizing Drugs in 12 March 1998"
> Source=> http://www.talkleft.com/archives/004605.html
The TalkLeft site has the headline wrong. Rush wasn't supporting
legalizing drugs:
"Raise the price sky high and fund all sorts of other wonderful social
programs."
Did Rush really want to "fund all sorts of other wonderful social
programs" with drug tax money? Or was he illustrating the absurdity of
the tabacco restrictions?
>
> "Drug Policy Alliance Urges Rush Limbaugh to Use Power and Influence
> to Benefit Hundreds of Thousands of Fellow Addicts Languishing in
> Prison"
> Source=>
http://www.drugpolicy.org/news/pressroom/pressrelease/pr1118b03.cfm
There's actually a good point at the drugpolicy site. Prisions aren't
drug treatment centers.
Rush wasn't personally hijacking trucks or breaking into pharmacies.
But he was throwing cash into the criminal culture. Maybe, after this
case is worked out, he'll talk about such things as criminalizing drug
abuse. I'd like to hear it. But that's not the sort of radio which has
given him plenty of money to throw around.
>
> "America owes talk host Rush Limbaugh a debt of gratitude,
> - - - Libertarians say"
> Source=> http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=652
Very funny! To quote the Libertarian writer:
"The entire nation owes radio broadcaster Rush Limbaugh a debt of
gratitude, Libertarians say, because his ordeal has exposed every drug
warrior in America as a rank hypocrite."
How true! To be fair to Rush, the drug war rarely came up on his show.
So, on this issue, Rush is a low rank hypocrite.
>
> "Rush Limbaugh Statement on Prescription Pain Medication Stories"
> Make-A-Shorter-Link URL-Key=> http://makeashorterlink.com/?X48B313E6
>
> "Rush Limbaugh and the Hypocrisy Smokescreen"
> Source=> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1018-04.htm
>
That's an interesting cite. Among the things it says is:
"With appalling chutzpa, the conservative choir has excused Limbaugh's
hypocrisy while simultaneously accusing "liberals and the media" of
either themselves doing drugs or defending those who do. Indeed,
according to the warped logic of one of his most vocal supporters,
Limbaugh's hypocrisy is acceptable in large part because of the media's
hypocrisy."
But to claim Rush Limbaugh is a hypocrite one would have to believe the
Rush Limbaugh radio character is the same as the real Rush Limbaugh.
> ssi ~ RHF
> = = = So Say I (My Personal Opinons and Beliefs Stated As Facts.)
> .
> .
> .
Frank Dresser
nobody
"Stinger" <con...@newsserveronly.com> wrote:
> How true. But their sold-out career politicians are worse than our our
> sold-out career politicians ;^)
Yep, neither side is much better or worse than the other, but it's
amusing to see how worked up some partisans can get trying to convince
the "other" side that it isn't so.
> The term-limit issue needs to be readdressed.
Amen!
nobody
> nobody <nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com> wrote in message
> news:<nobody-3329E8....@netnews.attbi.com>...
> > In article <c5ecbb69.03122...@posting.google.com>,
> > richc...@yahoo.com (Richard Cranium) wrote:
> >
> > > Soliloquy <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<Xns945B4ECE26929...@216.168.3.44>...
> > > > "JC" <N...@none.net> wrote in news:7KydnQOB4sj...@pronetisp.net:
> > > >
> > > > Payback time for what, his opinions?
> > >
> > > Ummm, yes. Rush is the moron who said that all drug abusers should be
> > > rounded up and thrown in prison. Are you saying this shouldn't apply
> > > to him?
> >
> >
> > No, but the law is. Do you think he should be put in jail for his
> > opinions?
>
> Since he's the one who said it, Yes, I think it should apply > especially <
> to him.
OK, you're now on record for wanting to punish someone for expressing
his opinion. How American of you.
nobody
"<RJ>" <bara...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Here's a topic for discussion;
>
> it's claimed that;
> Rush's houskeeper blackmailed him,
> threatening to tell of his addiction
> unless he paid her $$$$$.
>
> If you threaten to tell the truth about someone
> unless they pay you, is it blackmail ?
Yep.
> Would it be a criminal offense ?
It is.
> How is it different from extortion ?
They may be two different names for the same thing.
> If they can prove that she took money to keep quiet,
> has she committed a criminal offense ?
Yep.
> further
> If she took the cash, then told anyway,
> would she be liable in civil court for "breach of contract" ?
don't know.
nobody
"ASW" <antwo...@oohay.moc> wrote:
> It is not whether the law was broken, it was.
>
> In the case of Bill Clinton he obstructed justice, perjured himself, and
> tampered with witnesses. Rush obtained prescription drugs illegally,
> tampered with witnesses,....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you expand on that last one?
Stinger
Have someone read it to you.
Merry Christmas!
-- Stinger
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031225121435...@mb-m06.aol.com...
Ross Archer
A vindictive mentality just drags everybody down in the mud shouting and
slugging it out. When a "winner" ultimately emerges, it won't settle which
position is right or superior, just who has the bigger fists. That's fine for
troops of baboons, but not so good for civilized humans.
Yes, Rush's "get tough on drug users" stand is infinitely hypocritical, and
speaks for itself. You want to harm Rush? Dig out those quotes and trot them
out. However, aside from whatever damage this does to Rush's credibility, I
thought the classic liberal position was that this drug addiction is a medical
and rehabilitation problem, rather than a law enforcement one. Do I
misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.
This whole business of digging into his medical records and violating his
privacy rights disgusts me, and quite frankly, those who are driving this ought
to be ashamed of themselves if they're acting this way out of political motives.
I sickens me to see this kind of mentality amongst supposedly evolved people.
I'm not just saying this. You guys - get a grip and play the game by the rules.
My 0.02.
-- Ross
>
Ken Thomas
>kt, Kt. KT !
>
>"KT" Says (Writes): "Rush would take several hundred pills on a
>weekend
>- several hundred
>- think about it."
>
>OBTW: "KW" I like Your Style: AKA: th "-s" :o)
>
I just did the math. Maybe too much of an assumption so I stand
corrected on the amount per weekend.
Here's the quote helping me draw my conclusion.
"Limbaugh's former housekeeper claimed she helped the radio host buy
30,000 hydrocodone, Lorcet and OxyContin pills from black-market
suppliers between 1998 and 2002".
I assumed about an average of 150 a week. Then I figured he probably
got worse -- meaning he started out slowly and started taking ever
increasing amounts. So I was thinking he may have did 20 or so a week
in the beginning and then by the end of things was probably up to a
few hundred a week. Most likely taking those on the weekend when he
wasn't working.
No liberal spin. No conspiracy. Just a logical conclusion. Or so I
thought. Wow RHF - you're message is scary. The kt, Kt. KT! thing
and the nose growing comment and all the dashes, quotes, arrows and
symbols. Yikes dude.
Ken Thomas
>Do I
>misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
>pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
>deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.
Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?
It's not a question of liberal/conservative values. Who could give a
flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.
Regards.
RHF
BASIC FACT: Rush Limbaugh 'abused' Prescription Drugs; has
admitted being a Drug Addict; has sought Drug Treatment twice
before; and recently completed a Drug Treatment Program.
POLITICAL FACT: The Basic Facts are NOT Important [.]
What Is Important is Rush Limbaugh is a Conservative Talk Show Host;
and thus can be 'categorized' as "Social Deviant"; who requires
Internment for his Out Spoken Right Wing Political Views.
SIMPLE FACT: After she left Rush Limbaugh's employment; his
former housekeeper (Wilma Cline) was caught along with her
husband (David Cline) for Drug Dealing.
LEGAL FACT: After the Clines were caught, they then 'traded'
audio tapes and eMails that they claimed were from Rush Limbaugh
to the police and was "Granted Immunity from Prosecution".
= = = GET OUT OF JAIL FREE !
RECORDED FACT: The Clines are/were in-fact Drug Dealers and
evidently had kept records and evidence on their drug dealing
business to 'trade' with the police, if and when they got caught.
NAKED FACT: Punishing Drug Dealers if NOT the Focus of the
Current Criminal Investigation. Because the Drug Dealers are
being Granted Immunity from Procsecution" for Information on the
Right Wing Polictial Criminal who is called "Rush Limbaugh".
PUBLIC FACT: Rush Limbaugh is widely known as a Major Leader
of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. This has been publicly
confirmed by President Bill Clinton.
= = = We Can Trust Him At His Word :o)
APPARENT FACT: Rush Limbaugh is a Criminal (or ought to be
a criminal) for simply being Rush Limbaugh.
UNDISPUTBLE FACT: Rush Limbaugh is Rush Limbaugh [.]
( Rush Limbaugh has Publicly Admitted to being Rush Limbaugh. )
Just "The FACTS" Man ~ RHF
.
.
= = = "<RJ>" <bara...@localnet.com>
= = = wrote in message news:<blsluvo9vmuopc9lm...@4ax.com>...
.
RHF
Lets Do The Math (LDTM):
Most Common "Oxycodone" Dosage is 40 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Three to Six Pills a Day. (Maximum of Six Pills.)
Maximum "Oxycodone" Dosage is 160 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Dosage Factor: 160 mg divided by 40 mg Equals Four Times (4X)
Using your Heron Over Dose Numbers:
= Base Dose 200 mg
= OverDose 1800 mg
= "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
Resulting Conclusion: 216 @ 40 mg Pills
1. Maximum of Six Pills
2. Dosage Factor Equals Four Times (4X)
3. "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
TBL: 6 X 4 X 9 = 216 Pills in a Day should produce an Over Dose.
WOW... "RUSH" YOU DA MAN !
(He Is Still Alive - Wow !)
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count Your Toes !
.
.
= = = "Frank Dresser" <analo...@worldnet.att.net>
= = = wrote in message news:<w%FGb.531214$0v4.22...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
N8KDV
RHF wrote:
FD,Lets Do The Math (LDTM):
Most Common "Oxycodone" Dosage is 40 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Three to Six Pills a Day. (Maximum of Six Pills.)Maximum "Oxycodone" Dosage is 160 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
= = = Dosage Factor: 160 mg divided by 40 mg Equals Four Times (4X)Using your Heron Over Dose Numbers:
= Base Dose 200 mg
= OverDose 1800 mg
= "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)Resulting Conclusion: 216 @ 40 mg Pills
1. Maximum of Six Pills
2. Dosage Factor Equals Four Times (4X)
3. "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
TBL: 6 X 4 X 9 = 216 Pills in a Day should produce an Over Dose.WOW... "RUSH" YOU DA MAN !
(He Is Still Alive - Wow !)
Are you factoring in increased tolerence over time??
Ken Thomas
Brenda Ann
"Stinger" <con...@newsserveronly.com> wrote in message
news:E6EGb.24116$Ol1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> How true. But their sold-out career politicians are worse than our our
> sold-out career politicians ;^)
>
> The term-limit issue needs to be readdressed.
I don't believe in term limits for politicians.... they should do as much
prison time as any other criminal.. :P
Llgpt
>From: "Ross Archer" ro...@6502.org
>Date: 12/25/2003 2:57 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <MaIGb.2056$CJ6....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com>
Well, Rush "didn't" want to play by the "rules" until he was caught.
And, now he does.....................
Imagine that!
Les
BDK
bermi...@ananzi.co.za says...
Equating sex offenders with drug addiction is just plain nuts.
The drug laws are totally out of whack.
BDK
Ken Thomas
You're missing the point stupid. The sex offender part is not the key
here. Substitute any crime you'd like. What I'm trying to get across
is that a law is a law - the dude broke it whether he went to rehab or
maybe it's not a deterrent, etc... Intentions don't mean a damn
thing.
RHF
"Are you factoring in increased tolerence over time??"
Oh No !
Now I have to take off my shoes again.
jftfoi ~ RHF
.
.
= = = N8KDV <n8...@nospam.iserv.net>
= = = wrote in message news:<3FEB71D7...@nospam.iserv.net>...
> --
RHF
I just did the Math and at a possible 216 Pills a Day.
Several Hundred Pills in a Weekend would be a Fair Statement.
( So You Were Right - KT :o)
KT - If you Think My Message is Scary . . .
= = = You Don't Like My Posting Style.
- - - Don't Read Them !
+ + + Don't Reply To Them [.]
Here is "Something-To-Remember":
When You are Opening a Can of Worms.
Whether they are Dead? -or- Alive?
All You are Going to Get is Worms [.]
yiosd ~ RHF
= = = Yikes, I'm One Scary Dude :o)
.
.
= = = Ken Thomas <bermi...@ananzi.co.za>
= = = wrote in message news:<4hjmuvce1ck19pp0u...@4ax.com>...
.
Frank Dresser
>
> Lets Do The Math (LDTM):
>
> Most Common "Oxycodone" Dosage is 40 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
> = = = Three to Six Pills a Day. (Maximum of Six Pills.)
>
> Maximum "Oxycodone" Dosage is 160 mg and taken 3-6 Times a Day.
> = = = Dosage Factor: 160 mg divided by 40 mg Equals Four Times (4X)
>
> Using your Heron Over Dose Numbers:
> = Base Dose 200 mg
> = OverDose 1800 mg
> = "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
>
> Resulting Conclusion: 216 @ 40 mg Pills
> 1. Maximum of Six Pills
> 2. Dosage Factor Equals Four Times (4X)
> 3. "OD" Factor: Nine Times (9X)
> TBL: 6 X 4 X 9 = 216 Pills in a Day should produce an Over Dose.
>
> WOW... "RUSH" YOU DA MAN !
> (He Is Still Alive - Wow !)
>
>
> waef... ~ RHF
> = When All Else Fails...
> = = Take Off Your Shoes
> = = = And Count Your Toes !
> .
I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I never intended to imply each
of the supposed hundreds of pills was a narcotic. My original thoughts
are in quotes. :
"The original poster didn't support his claim, but hundreds of pills in
a
weekend aren't inconceiveable."
Note the word "pills" sits bare in the sentance, without any qualifiers.
Rush certainly was taking oxycontin. He's admitted as much. I'm open
to the possiblity he was taking other pills as well. Note the weenie
words "aren't inconceiveable.". I really have no idea how many pills
Rush was taking. Well, I know he was taking more than his doctor wanted
him to.
" It would take a fistful of 10 mg
oxycontin pills to have the kick that one 160 mg pill has. "
This is speculation. I have no idea which pill doses Rush was getting
illegally. The website says 40 mg tablets are the most commonly abused,
but I don't know if drug addicts get real picky about getting a
particular dose. Anyway, if Rush really was taking hundreds of pills
over a weekend, there could have been plenty of less restricted drugs in
the mix.
"I suppose
Rush might have been managing the opiate side effects with other drugs.
Elvis did. "
Again, this is speculation. As I understand, opiates have some nasty
side effects including depressed heart rate, depressed resperation and
constipation. A drug addict may try to counter act these side effects
with other drugs. Anyway, Elvis was the first guy who crossed my mind
when Rush's drug addiction came up in the news.
"Rush might have been downing vitamins and minerals and other
stuff the way bodybuilders and the health food crowd do."
A drug addict may load up on the vitamins and minerals to help fight
liver toxicity. He might even think the more vitamins and minerals, the
better.
This is all speculation. But it's far firmer speculation than the idea
that it would be impossible for Rush to have taken hundreds of pills
over a weekend.
I never claimed that Rush took hundreds of pills over a weekend,
although it's at least possible. I certainly never implied that Rush
took hundreds of oxycontin pills over a weekend. I don't mind making
that point more clear, but I don't know how it got lost in the first
place. This was one of those times I tried to write in clear and
concise English, and I don't think I was particularly murky.
Maybe the point got lost in a language barrier. I took Spanish back in
High School, and I didn't do particularly well. Languages have been
difficult for me. There must be a dozen languages I'd like to learn as
a SWL. Then, after I master those, I might take up "Illustrated
English".
Frank Dresser
Brian
> As the jobs flow overseas, (yes, yes, Mr. Bush is increasingly to blame
> for this as well)
The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.
Michael Bryant
>That's what was said in the thread by you and your buddies -- you moron.
>Have someone read it to you.
Could you please quote where 'I' said that one's political orientation is
directly related to their respect of "law and order"? And what "buddies" are
you speaking of, o' wordless one?
If you can't, or if you won't even give us your weird twist on how you can make
such an interpretation, I guess you could just openly admit what a moron you
are!
Explicate, sir, because you desperately need to eschew obfuscation.
Michael Bryant
>The only jobs GW has sent overseas in the US Army.
GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call centers in
India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.
Really.
Ross Archer
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:57:16 GMT, "Ross Archer" <ro...@6502.org> wrote:
>
> >Do I
> >misunderstand? Is there any value in jailing someone for becoming addicted to
> >pain medication, after he sought rehab? Any value at all??? I thought not. No
> >deterrent value. No rehabilitation value. Huge negative costs.
>
> Is there any value in throwing a confessed sex offender in jail?
> After they sought help a few times? Any value at all? Can't deter a
> sex offender right? Can they be rehabilitated? Costs?
That's ridiculous. Putting aside the huge difference in degree of
these two crimes -- in your example, there's a clear, unwilling VICTIM
and clear harm, and in Rush's case, whatever harm was done, he did to
himself.
There is no point in discussing such idiotically unconnected examples.
More appropriate would be discussing how to punish those who refuse to
wear seatbelts or insist on smoking. THESE are comparable examples.
Besides, there are stupid laws that violate higher principles. Until
recently, there were actually laws to dictate what consenting adults
were allowed to do in bed, if you can believe that! Wasting valuable
resources that could educate kids, vaccinate poor children, or add
cops to the beat, or incarcerate truly dangerous criminals, to
incarcerate some guy who takes some pills and harms HIMSELF is truly
idiotic, as are arguments supporting such action.
It's obvious to anyone who actually thinks it out.
>
> It's not a question of liberal/conservative values.
No, but it may be a question of reasonable people vs. "wacko" values.
I'm absolutely certain that Barry Goldwater, no liberal by any stretch
of the imagination, would agree with me on principles of liberty.
Where you're coming from -- that laws should be enforced regardless of
whether they're wrong -- is just wacko.
It's pure wackosity to jail someone for abusing perscription drugs
unless you can prove they were driving around under their influence,
or otherwise endangering others by taking them.
Ignoring unjust laws is no vice. Enforcing unjust laws is no virtue.
;)
> Who could give a
> flying F about how those ideals apply to this argument. If a law was
> broken - pay the consequences. If not - no problem. If anything,
> he's not a victim of his politics - just a victim of being famous.
As much as Rush's politics irritate me, I beg to differ. I think it's
exactly a politically-motivated attack. When's the last time a famous
movie star was prosecuted criminally for pill abuse? It's not fame,
it's scoring political points off an opponent.
Like I said, it's not hard to take Rush down, but do so on based on
his blatant hypocrisy rather than by violating his rights.
>
> Regards.
Brother Bill
>
> GW has outsourced Republican telemarketing for contributions to call
centers in
> India. He has refused to take a stance against any outsourcing.
PROVE IT.
RHF
"Only a extremist would really believe that one's desire for
law and order is determined by their political perspective."
Only an EXTREMIST would call another person an "Extremist".
A more Moderate Person would call them "Over Opinionated" :o)
Butt Hey, Thats Just My Opinion !
fditkotm ~ RHF
= = = From Deep in the Kingdom of the Mushrooms.
.
.
= = = mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message news:<20031225121435...@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> >From: "Stinger" con...@newsserveronly.com
>
> >Wow... "Law and Order" liberals!
> >
> >
>
> Only a extremist would really believe that one's desire for law and order is
> determined by their political perspective.
>
> Stop trolling on Christmas, you moron.
>
>
> Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
> Louisville, KY
> R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
> DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
> GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
> (remove "nojunk" to reply)
>
.
RHF
The reply was NOT met to be any implication of the any misstatement on
your part and you in fact did communicate your thoughts and ideas very
well.
When I post to a topic here that is not related to Radios and
Antennas.
I tend to treat the post as an exercise in the absurd.
Maybe, my Tag Line
> > waef... ~ RHF
> > = When All Else Fails...
> > = = Take Off Your Shoes
> > = = = And Count Your Toes !
Should have Read
waef... ~ RHF
= When All Else Fails...
= = "I" Take Off Your Shoes
= = = And Count "MY" Toes !
All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
TBL: Love Me. -or- Love to Hate Me.
irs... ~ RHF
= = = I Remain Simply... A Real Happy Fella !
.
.
= = = "Frank Dresser" <analo...@worldnet.att.net>
= = = wrote in message news:<z2QGb.534155$0v4.22...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
Ken Thomas
getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
kick.
RHF
Its Nice To Be Remembered :o)
Love Me. -or- Love To Hate Me.
All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
To Restate the above with 'application' to Rush Limbaugh.
= = = Love RUSH. -or- Love To Hate RUSH.
= = = All RUSH 'needs' is for "You" to listen, Listen. LISTEN !
pwlp... ~ RHF
= = = People Who Love People, Are the Happiest People In the World.
To 'paraphase' Barbara Streisand in the Song "PEOPLE"
.
People,
People who need people,
Are the luckiest people in the world
We're children, needing other children
And yet letting a grown-up pride
Hide all the need inside
Acting more like children than children
Lovers are very special people
They're the luckiest people in the world
With one person one very special person
A feeling deep in your soul
Says you were half now you're whole
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world
With one person one very special person
No more hunger and thirst
But first be a person who needs people
People who need people
Are the luckiest people in the world...
- - -
.
.
= = = Ken Thomas <bermi...@ananzi.co.za>
= = = wrote in message news:<jqrmuvc5t0l977deu...@4ax.com>...
Michael Bryant
Duh. Prove he hasn't. You started the assertions.
But, just for your needed education, try the following:
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/07/30/news/wyoming/4624eddd
c346dde0c920e515aad2129a.txt
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0301/031301p1.htm
http://www.csa-dc.org/press_shop/CSA%20in%20the%20News.htm
http://bbspot.com/politics/News/2003/09/outsourcing.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13711-2003Dec18.html
Now, it's your turn, Brother Bill. Please prove that Bush has NOT sent jobs
overseas. Bet you can't!
Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear lies?
Try again, loser.
Frank Dresser
>
> The reply was NOT met to be any implication of the any misstatement on
> your part and you in fact did communicate your thoughts and ideas very
> well.
>
> When I post to a topic here that is not related to Radios and
> Antennas.
> I tend to treat the post as an exercise in the absurd.
>
> Maybe, my Tag Line
> > > waef... ~ RHF
> > > = When All Else Fails...
> > > = = Take Off Your Shoes
> > > = = = And Count Your Toes !
>
> Should have Read
> waef... ~ RHF
> = When All Else Fails...
> = = "I" Take Off Your Shoes
> = = = And Count "MY" Toes !
>
>
> All the World Needs is love, Love. LOVE !
> TBL: Love Me. -or- Love to Hate Me.
>
>
> irs... ~ RHF
> = = = I Remain Simply... A Real Happy Fella !
> .
> .
trivial point. Rush might have been taking alot of pills or a few, but
I didn't notice him getting groggy and dull witted.
I also have to figure he'll have an extra burden in keeping himself
clean if he still has chronic pain.
Frank Dresser
Stinger
You were fussing about hypocrisy and wanting to throw the book at him. Do
your own research, Michael. Seriously, you are not worth my time.
But then you felt you needed to come to the aid of the twits posting the
"get Rush" garbage above, when I pointed out the hypocrisy of the "law and
order" liberals. The first post in this thread's entire message was "It's
payback time!" It was followed by others in a similar vein -- which makes
my point.
As is the usual case with people of your persuasion and mental capacity,
rather than debate this point, you went for the personal attack, namecalling
(troll, moron, and extremist).
Basically, you just prove that that someone can have a call sign and own 14
radios, but still be a Marxist idiot. (Oh yes, the Marxist comment is a
self-description from one of your own posts as well, and no -- I won't do
your research on that one either. Google it yourself.
Oh, one more thing.... We're not laughing WITH you.
PLONK!
-- Stinger
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031226084740...@mb-m07.aol.com...
Stinger
SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing loss
that these drugs caused.
I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand Jury.
Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various police
(state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me. "Methamphetamine
addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the most
dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."
Rush is lucky to be alive.
-- Stinger
"Frank Dresser" <analo...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hR4Hb.538997$0v4.22...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Michael Bryant
>You and I had a discourse when the Rush drug scandal hit the messageboard.
>You were fussing about hypocrisy and wanting to throw the book at him. Do
>your own research, Michael. Seriously, you are not worth my time.
Your memory sucks as much as your mental capacity. I said it was wrong to not
attempt to prosecute him as much as any other citizen. Painkiller abuse is
rampant in Kentucky and people go to prison everyday. Rush deserves no special
dispensation due to his celebrity.
>But then you felt you needed to come to the aid of the twits posting the
>"get Rush" garbage above, when I pointed out the hypocrisy of the "law and
>order" liberals. The first post in this thread's entire message was "It's
>payback time!" It was followed by others in a similar vein -- which makes mt
point.
You really need a logic class because your reasoning skills seem negligible. I
was attacking the very thesis of your convoluted reasoning, ie, that any
liberal favoring fair application of the law is a hypocrite. That's the missing
warrant to your non-argument. Understand?
>As is the usual case with people of your persuasion and mental capacity,
>rather than debate this point, you went for the personal attack, namecalling
>(troll, moron, and extremist).
>
I pointed that your attitude was not fitting the Christmas holiday. I stand by
that assessment. I guarantee you that my background in both persuasion and
debate makes your assessment an obvious joke. You do the Google research,
troll.
>Basically, you just prove that that someone can have a call sign and own 14
>radios, but still be a Marxist idiot. (Oh yes, the Marxist comment is a
>self-description from one of your own posts as well, and no -- I won't do
>your research on that one either. Google it yourself.
Oh, please quote me saying I'm a Marxist. You lying bag of crap. I can point to
dozens of places on the internet where I've fought with academic Marxist
philosophers. Let's see you prove that I've advocated Marxism.
>Oh, one more thing.... We're not laughing WITH you.
You sound more like a nervous giggler.
FU
RHF
Yes Rush is Lucky to be Alive - Amen.
Rush is also an 'example' of the FACT that even with:
Public Fame, Personal Fortune, and High Social Esteem.
NO One is beyond the Sicknesses of Our Society - NO One [.]
~ RHF
.
.
= = = "Stinger" <con...@newsserveronly.com>
= = = wrote in message news:<_S6Hb.29440$Ol1....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>...
> Maybe so, Frank, but you're absolutely right that he must have been taking
> SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing loss
> that these drugs caused.
>
> I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand Jury.
> Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various police
> (state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me. "Methamphetamine
> addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the most
> dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."
>
> Rush is lucky to be alive.
>
> -- Stinger
>
- - - S N I P - - -
.
Frank Dresser
>
> Yes Rush is Lucky to be Alive - Amen.
>
> Rush is also an 'example' of the FACT that even with:
>
> Public Fame, Personal Fortune, and High Social Esteem.
>
> NO One is beyond the Sicknesses of Our Society - NO One [.]
>
>
> ~ RHF
> .
> .
The real Rush Limbaugh probably won't make a public statement.
Life still has risks. People who go into traffic might get injured.
Some people who get infected by the flu get killed. Most of us can
drink without becoming alcoholics, but some of us can't. There are some
very powerful drugs out there, and some people who take them will get
addicted to them. I don't know all the factors involved in drug
addiction, but I suspect the biggest factors are exposure and chance.
Frank Dresser
Frank Dresser
> Maybe so, Frank, but you're absolutely right that he must have been
taking
> SERIOUS amounts of these painkillers, given the side-effect of hearing
loss
> that these drugs caused.
>
Well, Rush is claiming the hearing loss was caused by an autoimmune
disorder. He says it's just a coincidence that he was taking the drugs
at the time. Dunno about that, though.
> I just got off of a year's duty as the foreman on our county Grand
Jury.
> Having eaten lunch most days with the District Attorney and various
police
> (state, local, and county), I'll repeat what they told me.
"Methamphetamine
> addicts are the most dangerous to others. Oxycontin addicts are the
most
> dangerous to themselves -- they usually end up dead of overdoses."
>
> Rush is lucky to be alive.
>
> -- Stinger
>
And Rush wasn't breaking into people's homes to support his habit. I
guess the average addict buys about as much of a drug as they can
afford, and they risk an overdose after lean period.
Frank Dresser
Brian
From the Washington Post link:
"John Gage, president of the American Federation of Government
Employees, is gearing up for a long, difficult battle with the Bush
administration.
The union plans to spend $1 million on an advertising campaign"
BREAK
Isn't spending $1,000,000 of union members money on advertising called
"outsourcing?" Maybe it would be cheaper for them to use that money
in some other way than hiring Madison Avenue to lease time on Ted
Turner Network to talk to the People.
continue...
"in key presidential campaign states to argue that taxpayer money is
being wasted on government contractors and that the administration's
outsourcing efforts make it more difficult to deliver health care to
military veterans."
BREAK
Military Members are NOT unionized and are not part of the Federal
Employees Union. I wonder why this union has decided to pick up the
cause of Veterans?
continue...
"The goal, Gage said, "is not so much to saturate the voters with our
message. We're trying to get our message out to the people who follow
politics closely and to encourage the candidates to pick up our
issues."
The union also plans to spend at least $700,000 lobbying on Capitol
Hill in coming months, and AFGE legislative director Beth Moten and
her staff will focus on outsourcing, pay, overtime, labor rights and
employee rights."
BREAK
Hmmm. More outsourcing. I wonder who will receive the $700,000 lobby
fee. Why can't the union just send over Beth and a couple of their
reps to talk to government members on Capitol Hill? I'm sure a few
first class plane tickets, a few nights in a luxury suite and an open
bar tab would cost far less than $700,000.
So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.
Michael Bryant
>So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
>money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.
>
>
Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for
Bush to send US jobs overseas?
So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
protest outsourcing? So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?
I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at
refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument.
Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.
Bryant
Brian
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> >So in the end, no matter who they are, they're pretty free with the
> >money as long as its not coming out of their own pockets.
> >
> >
>
> Well, I guess you don't like labor unions. Is that why you think it's good for
> Bush to send US jobs overseas?
I didn't see that in the Wash. Post article.
> So, YOUR complaint is that labor unions are spending their members' money to
> protest outsourcing?
I just asked why labor unions don't do some hiring and do for
themselves all the lobbying against outsourcing instead of outsourcing
everything and complaining about outsourcing.
> So you grant that Bush is sending US jobs overseas, right?
No, I didn't see anything in the Wash. Post article validating Bush
sending phone calls over to India.
> I'll be honest, sir - your reply is one of the worst attempts I've ever seen at
> refutation by attempting to shift the focus of an argument.
Oh, so sorry. Had the Wash. Post article you linked us to included
any validation of your assertion that Bush outsourced phone calls to
India, I would have commented on it. But it didn't.
> Let me know when you can actually refute any of the data about Bush
> deliberately supporting sending US jobs abroad.
I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.
But what I did find was that the fed-union appears to do a lot of
outsourcing themselves. Doesn't matter because its someone else's
money, I guess.
I guess that you and I can process identical information and see
different outcomes. Wonder what that means?
Michael Bryant
>I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
>have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
>the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
>with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.
>
Bullshit. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.
But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.
RHF
Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.
This is all about a Government Employees Job Protection Program.
These Government Employee's Unions Object to Circular No. A-76.
Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of 1998,
Which is Public Law 105-270.
Commonly called OMB "Circular No. A-76"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a076/a076.html
YES - It must recently happened under then President Clinton.
BUT - It Is An ACT of Congress; that was Signed into LAW by the
President.
The President acted only after Congress (House and Senate) Acted.
Congress and the President both deserve the Credit of the Blame.
* It Did Not Start with former president Bill Clinton.
* It Will Not End with the current President GW Bush.
It has a Long History:
http://www.dla.mil/j-3/a-76/OMBCircularA-76.html
* This national policy was promulgated through Bureau of the Budget
Bulletins issued in 1955, 1957 and 1960.
= President Eisenhower
* OMB Circular No. A-76 was issued in 1966.
= President Johnson
* The Circular was previously revised in 1967, 1979, and 1983.
= Presidents: Johnson, Carter, and Reagan
* The Supplement (Revised Supplemental Handbook) was previously
revised in March 1996.
= President Clinton
NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
It was an ACT of Congress.
The Two Faces of Congress:
The very same members of Congress that are Now Claiming that "BUSH"
has 'stretched' our Military "Too Thin" in both Afganistan and Iraq.
Well "Congress" get off your Asses and Do Something (Besides Talk
and Blame the President) to Build-Up Our US Military some that it
can Fight a World Wide Terrorist War and Win It [.]
GETTING BACK TO TH TOPIC OF JOBS FOR AMERICANS:
The Congress of the USofA should do more to Create New Technologies
and Jobs; Retrain American Workers for Tomorrows Jobs; and Stop
the out-flow of American Jobs Overseas. After "The Congress" ACTs
then "The President" (Who Ever He Is) should Sign the Bill into LAW
[.]
tyftsbt ~ RHF
= = = Thank You For The Soap Box Time.
.
.
= = = mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message news:<20031228201116...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
Michael Bryant
>Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
>and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
>to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.
RHF,
The poster said that the only jobs Bush had sent overseas were military jobs.
That's BS. Bush supports companies being allowed to "outsource" jobs to the
Caribbean and India to maximize their profits. He's always supported companies
profits over keeping jobs in the US. He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
with telemarketers to gather Republican funds. You're confusing Bush policy
with others. Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
Americans that still have jobs.
Bryant
Brian
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> >I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
> >have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
> >the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
> >with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.
> >
>
> Bullshit.
double-BS back at you.
> The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
> protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
> won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
> clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.
JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton
policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with
the Democrat party.
> But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
> chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
> something you assert.
My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.
Thanks for not wasting any more of my precious time.
Brian
Brian
> mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message news:<20031228201116...@mb-m01.aol.com>...
> > >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> > >I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
> > >have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
> > >the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
> > >with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.
> > >
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> double-BS back at you.
>
> > The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
> > protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
> > won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
> > clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.
>
> JC and I were commenting on a supposed Bush policy, not a Clinton
> policy. If you want to protest old Clinton policies, take it up with
> the Democrat party.
Correction - that should read "Soliloguy and I..."
Dave Moorman
kk...@aol.com (LW) wrote:
> "JC" wrote >...
> > It's payback time!
> >
>
> Soooo .. what did you have in mind?
>
> He admitted the problem .. he went through treatment .. his ratings
> are up a few points .. he's putting a few more million in the bank ..
> hasn't he suffered enough already?
>
> Come on JC it's Christmas .. try to have peace on earth and good will
> toward your fellow man just for a few days. OK?
I don't listen to Rush, but the impression is that he advocates hard
time for all drug abusers, which would include him. Shouldn't he be
lining up at the prison door with all of the other folks who have harmed
no one but themselves?
Dave
Uncle Jizzie
> Why no real address? Not enough courage to attach your name to your clear
lies?
>
> Try again, loser.
>
>
> Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
> Louisville, KY
> R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
> DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
> GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
UJ
mikebra...@hotmail.com
Uncle Jizzie
PetiteRadio
Oui, it was a Klinton policy!
What a putz you are M. Bryant.
--
Ce message a ete poste via la plateforme Web club-Internet.fr
This message has been posted by the Web platform club-Internet.fr
Brian
> NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
> 1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
> It was an ACT of Congress.
Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.
Brian
> >From: rhf-...@pacbell.net (RHF
>
> >Most of these websites are by and for Government Employees Unions
> >and the Reduction of Government Jobs. This has little or nothing
> >to do with the LOSS of "Real" Jobs by American Workers to Overseas.
>
> RHF,
>
> The poster said that the only jobs Bush had sent overseas were military jobs.
What other jobs does he have the authority to send overseas?
OK, diplomats to countries that we have relations with and a few UN
appointments.
What others?
> That's BS.
Of course it isn't.
> Bush supports companies being allowed to "outsource" jobs to the
> Caribbean and India to maximize their profits. He's always supported companies
> profits over keeping jobs in the US.
Then talk to their shareholders. BTW, do you have a 401K or an IRA?
Hmmmm?
> He's even encouraged the RNC to do this
> with telemarketers to gather Republican funds.
Encouraging something is different than having the authority to make
it happen. Personally, I think he ought to ask those Chinese Nuns and
Arms Merchants for a few bucks while he's out there "encouraging"
donations.
You're confusing Bush policy
> with others.
Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my
latest posting.
Will post proof when I get off work, but it's Monday for us
> Americans that still have jobs.
There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
amount of money leaving America.
Ross Archer
> I don't think he's being charged for abusing the drugs. I think he's
> getting in trouble for how he obtained them. Hey, I agree with a lot
> of the things you're saying. Drug use probably can't be changed with
> jail time. I hope the guy gets better. It'll be a tough habit to
> kick.
Hope so. No sense in wishing ill will even on someone I don't particularly care
for.
I bet it is tough to quit, else why do so many famous people have run-ins with
them, *despite* the risks?
Imagine being a millionaire and still risking jail-time. Must be powerful
stuff.
And I see your point about how they're obtained vs. "punishing" him for using
them. Yes, a law is a law. But some laws are kind of stupid, which is why we
have jury nullification in case someone gets too literal and mis-apply them, and
I thought you were saying that drug use was comparable with child molestation --
and I don't think very many people would agree with that idea at all.
To my way of thinking, he did something stupid which will probably cause lasting
harm to his health, if any of the rumors are true. I'm trying to understand, in
general, why people equate totally and vastly different sorts of crimes. To my
thinking, you ought to get more time for assaulting someone in a bar than
shooting up heroin. In the latter case, you're killing yourself (most heroin
users will eventually die from it if they don't quit), but it's your life to
ruin. In the former case, you're hurting an innocent victim. At least the
addict knows what he's doing, and chooses to do it. Not to be cold, but I'd
rather honor his freedom to piss his life away, than trust government to decide
what is or is not okay and make everybody conform to that.
"We're from the government, and we're here to help you!" :)
Run! :)
Michael Bryant
> My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
> Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.
>
Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that is
encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.
Anyone with the minimal effort to check a URL could see that it was Bush. Check
this URL:
http://www.mcgladrey-family.us/kayne/archives/2003/10/02/bush_permits_outs
ourcing.html
(For those with not enough time to click a link:)
Bush Permits Outsourcing
"Higher skilled jobs are going away," said Pricilla Tate, Director of the
Technology Managers Forum, a New York-based group representing IT executives at
large companies. "There are people who will not get jobs in the IT industry
again -- they just have been replaced." And the President isn't going to do a
thing about it.
ComuterWorld is running a story titled "Bush Administration Won't Impede
Offshore Outsourcing". While it's fully within the power of the President to
make it harder for companies to outsource work to offshore firms, there are no
plans to. Instead of providing a solution, Chris Israel, a deputy assistant
secretary at the U.S. Department of Commerce, said that "the answer to economic
challenges is growth and innovation."
Growth and innovation. When Detroit and Japan went toe-to-toe over auto
manufacturing, how quickly did growth and innovation help? Ten years? Twenty
years? Or how about textile manufacturing, with the United States going up
against China and other countries with poor human rights records? The truth is
that the manufacturing jobs went overseas and didn't come back. How long can
skilled workers remain unemployed?
Growth and innovation aren't standing well in the face of greed and
commoditization. Many of the IT workers in the United States created processes
and technologies that have enabled the globalization of information technology,
and they've lost their jobs as a result. They weren't rewarded for their
innovation.
The Gartner Group predicted that ten percent of all IT jobs are going offshore
in 2004. Despite the failing economy, despite all the indicators that this is a
crisis in the making, George Bush isn't doing a thing to prevent jobs going
overseas. His economic policy of tax cuts for the rich did not create jobs, and
his economic policy of tax cuts for parents did not create jobs. He's not even
attempting to set guidelines for trade agreements based on comparable workers
rights and human rights. His economic policy is a failure, and shows that he is
incapable of helping to retain the jobs we have, even as more jobs are lost."
Any evidence to the contrary? No? I wonder why not?
Bryant
Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)
Michael Bryant
Michael Bryant
>There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
>illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
>spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
>Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
>amount of money leaving America.
Wow, more stellar reasoning!
First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers. Attacking
Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.
Second, please explain, very carefully, what this has to do with Bush
outsourcing?
Third, when it comes right down to it, what has Bush done to stop illegal
workers? Nothing. It might have a negative impact on corporate profits.
You seem to enjoy being an idiot!
Bryant
Michael Bryant
>Bryant, you're confused. That's why you have yet to respond to my
>latest posting.
Once again, you prove that you lack basic reading capabilities. I said I would
respond as soon as I got off work. Some of us actually have to work for a
living.
My response has already been posted.
Timing your attempt as refutation,
Bryant
Michael Bryant
>If anyone posting a message in this or any other newsgroup is "hiding"
>their true identities by using a fictious or non-existent email address, it
>is most likely because they very wisely choose not to have their inbox
>flooded with unwanted spam - NOT because they are "losers".
>Grow up Bryant, for chrissakes.
>UJ
I don't but it. I've had this address on Usenet for over a decade. I'm not
buried in spam. It's a covenient excuse for people that don't want to stand
behind what they choose to say.
I think your choice of an anonymous screen name clearly tells a lot about what
type of person you are.
Bryant
Bryant
nobody
mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote:
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> > My mistake. I thought the subject was a Bush policy. You can bash
> > Clinton all you want for all the good it will do now.
> >
>
> Sorry, my post this early morn was mis-typed. It is Bush, not Clinton, that
> is encouraging the outsourcing of US jobs.
Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.
Michael Bryant
>Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.
Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and
supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election.
The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents
that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and
supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free
trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His
rationale:
It will protect US corporate profits.
As I said, try again.
Brenda Ann
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20031229214340...@mb-m16.aol.com...
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> >There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
> >illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
> >spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
> >Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
> >amount of money leaving America.
>
> Wow, more stellar reasoning!
>
> First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.
Attacking
> Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.
I don't support illegal workers replacing US workers, either.... however,
the predominance of jobs taken by Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are
agricultural jobs for low pay that you could not get the "average US worker"
to take, and therefor would simply not get done otherwise. I know this from
practical experience over a long period of time (my teens and beyond).. I
was the only non-Mexican, non Native American worker in any of the fields I
ever worked... we had people in town that griped about the Mexicans taking
away jobs, but when they were offered those jobs, year after year, before
the migrants came in, they always turned them down...
BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican
immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others.
T. Early
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
Interesting. Pardon the interruption, but I'm curious as to why you
equate doing nothing to -discourage- outsourcing (assuming that's the
case) with -encouraging- outsourcing. They are not the same,
obviously. The alternative is protectionism, which most who support
a global economy oppose.
Michael Bryant
> don't support illegal workers replacing US workers, either.... however,
>the predominance of jobs taken by Mexican immigrants, legal or illegal, are
>agricultural jobs for low pay that you could not get the "average US worker"
>to take, and therefor would simply not get done otherwise. I know this from
>practical experience over a long period of time (my teens and beyond).. I
>was the only non-Mexican, non Native American worker in any of the fields I
>ever worked... we had people in town that griped about the Mexicans taking
>away jobs, but when they were offered those jobs, year after year, before
>the migrants came in, they always turned them down...
Right you are, BA! Most US workers couldn't survive on the wages of most
illegal workers. That makes Bush policy favoring the export of higher-paying
job cause even more resentment of illegal workers.
>
>BTW, Bush is now back to discussing a blanket amnesty for illegal Mexican
>immigrants, for the very reasons listed above, among others.
>
>
Again, you're right on the money. But don't tell any of the Bush-ites. You
might rock their reality!
T. Early
"Michael Bryant" <mwbr...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> >From: nobody nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com
>
> >Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.
>
> Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term
negotiating and
> supporting the NAFTA treaty. Clinton signed it shortly after the 92
election.
> The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican
presidents
> that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were
initiated and
> supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently
pursuing a free
> trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western
Hemisphere? His
> rationale:
> It will protect US corporate profits.
>
Well, where to start? Bush, not Clinton, signed NAFTA in December,
1992. IMO it's also rather ridiculous to suggest Bush spent his
"whole term" negotiating it. I'm quite sure he did a couple of other
things from '89-'92.
The implication that NAFTA was entirely Bush's baby is equally
incorrect. In fact, Clinton expended political capital and -actively-
campaigned for its passage in Congress throughout the early part of
his presidency, leading to the passage in November, '93--10 months
into Clinton's first term. He was not in the least a passive
participant in its Congressional approval, and, again contrary to
implication above, was the most active of the past several presidents
in supporting free trade. This is evidenced by his total support for
GATT in 1994 and the creation of the WTO.
RHF
The First Rule of Politics is . . .
It's Not Who Did the Work - That Gets the Credit of Blame.
It's Who Signs the Bill (Act of Congress) into LAW [.]
So Give then President Clinton the Credit of the Blame.
~ RHF
.
.
= = = mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant)
= = = wrote in message news:<20031229220744...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
Brian
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> >There are non-Americans here who also have jobs, some of them
> >illegals. And they send U.S. $$$'s back to wherever instead of
> >spending them in our shopping malls, our pharmacies, and our
> >Blockbusters. But I don't hear you complaining about illegals or the
> >amount of money leaving America.
>
> Wow, more stellar reasoning!
>
> First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.
You did by omission.
Attacking
> Bush outsourcing hardly means I support illegal workers. Duh.
BUSH, Bush, bush. Why is Bush so evil?
> Second, please explain, very carefully, what this has to do with Bush
> outsourcing?
You tell me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Bryant (mwbr...@aol.comnojunk)
Subject: Re: Dear Rush
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: 2003-12-28 17:11:50 PST
>From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>I only had time to look at one of your links. Unfortunately, I don't
>have unlimited time to follow all of your links, so I would suggest in
>the future that you be more specific before wasting everyones time
>with useless, vector links. I.E., get to the point sooner.
>
Bullshit. The combination of multiple links indicate that the unions are
protesting an official Clinton policy. The fact that you can't (more likely
won't) realize that the official Clinton policy encourages outsourcing is
clearly more a product of your non-objectivity than your shortage of time.
But what evidence is there to the contrary?I've provided evidence, and you've
chosen to ignore the bulk of it. Prove my facts wrong. Come on, try to prove
something you assert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
So which is it that you're complaining about? Clinton or Bush?
> Third, when it comes right down to it, what has Bush done to stop illegal
> workers? Nothing. It might have a negative impact on corporate profits.
>
> You seem to enjoy being an idiot!
You can't tell the diff between Clinton and Bush. Who'se the idiot?
Brian
So you respond from work that you'll respond after work? You're a genius.
Brian
> >From: brian...@juno.com (Brian)
>
> >rhf-...@pacbell.net (RHF) wrote in message
> >news:<e5e13af8.03122...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> NOTE: The "Down Sizing" (Peace Dividend) of the US Military in the
> >> 1990's was not the sole single act of the then President Clinton.
> >> It was an ACT of Congress.
> >
> >Daddy Bush got that one rolling, not Clinton. I was there.
> >
>
> Wow. Some hint of honesty on your part. How surprising!
Always. You just might get it someday.
Brian
This stuff was going on while Bush was hungover and not showing up for
his UTA weekends with the Guard. Now it's all his fault.
States all over the Union are giving tax breaks (i.e., 10 years of
operations w/o paying taxes) to corporations to try to retain jobs in
America. And when the tax breaks wear out, the company is likely to
pick up and move somewhere else anyway.
Do you want the Labor Unions to accelerate the process?
What do you propose Bush do aboaut it?
Brian
> >From: nobody nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com
>
> >Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.
>
> Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term negotiating and
> supporting the NAFTA treaty.
Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
NAFTA?
You ought to go on one of them Art Bell shows and 'splain your
conspiracy theory.
Clinton signed it shortly after the 92 election.
> The negotiating of the details took place under the two Republican presidents
> that preceded him. Actually, the US negotiations for NAFTA were initiated and
> supported by Reagan. Are you aware that GW Bush is currently pursuing a free
> trade agreement to cover US trade with the entire Western Hemisphere? His
> rationale:
> It will protect US corporate profits.
>
> As I said, try again.
Mike, I take it that you consider yourself an IT professional? Have
you ever considered moving yourself and family to India to snatch one
of those jobs, and a better way of life?
I understand that ARAMCO is currently paying very high wages for IT
workers.
Michael Bryant
>So you respond from work that you'll respond after work? You're a genius.
None of my posts were made from work. I posted in the morning before work and
started again 12 hours later after I got off from work. You are deliberately
playing games. And you are definitely one of the stupidest internet morons I've
ever dealt with.
Go play with yourself.
Bryant
Brenda Ann
"Brian" <brian...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:f45722ac.03123...@posting.google.com...
> mwbr...@aol.comnojunk (Michael Bryant) wrote in message
news:<20031229220744...@mb-m16.aol.com>...
> > >From: nobody nob...@nospam.nohow.noway.com
> >
> > >Msut be why Clinton signed NAFTA.
> >
> > Try again. GH Bush is the President that spent his whole term
negotiating and
> > supporting the NAFTA treaty.
>
> Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
> saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
> Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
> to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
> NAFTA?
Wrong Bush.. they're talking about King George I... who WAS instrumental in
NAFTA
Michael Bryant
>Now wait just a damned minute. You Bush haters (Libs) have been
>saying that he has spent his whole term waging war against innocent
>Saddamites. Now we learn that the war against terror was just a ruse
>to take our attention away from what he was really doing - supporting
>NAFTA?
Wow, you really ARE stupid! GW Bush has fought the war against terror. GH Bush,
GW's father, was the one responsible for NAFTA. How old are you? You seem to
have the reasoning powers of a 3rd grader!
>You ought to go on one of them Art Bell shows and 'splain your
>conspiracy theory.
No, I'd think they'd be more entertained by hearing about an idiot, like
yourself, who seems incapable of distinguishing GW and GH Bush. They are
different people, even if they are related.
You've really proven yourself as an entertaining source of idiocy.
Keep trying.
Bryant
Michael Bryant
>> Wow, more stellar reasoning!
>>
>> First, I've never supported illegal workers replacing US workers.
>
>You did by omission.
By omission?? If you use that twisted reasoning then GW is clearly responsible
for US jobs going overseas by "omitting" to do anything about it.
You really are one of the most stupid conservatives I've ever encountered.
Keep up the fine work!
Bryant
Brian
Mike, you get way too excited, and you like to call people names.
Maybe one day we can have a rational discussion about the Feds,
Unions, and overseas work. Let me know when.
Brian
Brian
Ooops!