Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Obama - CLUBBED LIKE A BABY SEAL
70 views
Skip to first unread message
FDK
Oct 3, 2012, 10:34:15 PM10/3/12
to
A bloodbath.
BAR
Oct 3, 2012, 11:05:07 PM10/3/12
to
In article <k4isj1$l7q$1...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
>
> A bloodbath.
Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
Romney controlled the debate.
Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> A bloodbath.
Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
Romney controlled the debate.
Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 3, 2012, 11:31:11 PM10/3/12
to
Carbon
Oct 4, 2012, 12:33:21 AM10/4/12
to
he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
This was the best presidential debate in some time.
Don Kirkman
Oct 4, 2012, 2:41:02 AM10/4/12
to
On 04 Oct 2012 04:33:21 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
ISTM that Obama was laying back taking Romney's measure, and then
came out near the end with the bit about lack of details. Afterward
there was some chatter that holding back a bit might have been the
game plan.
Romney, OTOH, had clearly done his homework with a memory full of
statistics, although some of those had already been debunked earlier
(especially that "taking 716 mil from health care" which Obama had
already explained earlier)) but he overdid the confrontational stuff.
To me that came across as bullying--not only toward Obama, but toward
Lehrer as well. I lost track of how many times Romney interrupted
Obama and he failed to stop on several occasions when Lehrer called
time. That probably fires up the loyalists, but I wonder how the
dwindling number of undecideds and independents felt about it.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
wrote:
came out near the end with the bit about lack of details. Afterward
there was some chatter that holding back a bit might have been the
game plan.
Romney, OTOH, had clearly done his homework with a memory full of
statistics, although some of those had already been debunked earlier
(especially that "taking 716 mil from health care" which Obama had
already explained earlier)) but he overdid the confrontational stuff.
To me that came across as bullying--not only toward Obama, but toward
Lehrer as well. I lost track of how many times Romney interrupted
Obama and he failed to stop on several occasions when Lehrer called
time. That probably fires up the loyalists, but I wonder how the
dwindling number of undecideds and independents felt about it.
--
Don Kirkman
don...@charter.net
Hollis2
Oct 4, 2012, 3:06:24 AM10/4/12
to
the debate, it was a huge ass kicking.
Moderate
Oct 4, 2012, 6:22:50 AM10/4/12
to
Moderate
Oct 4, 2012, 6:25:18 AM10/4/12
to
"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
FDK
Oct 4, 2012, 8:38:21 AM10/4/12
to
"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
news:pj9q681a8tph4ctnd...@4ax.com...
reality.
In the one you saw, did Obama keep running over his time constantly
and excessively, as he did in mine?
Did he look like he was taking a hard shit?
William Clark
Oct 4, 2012, 9:30:31 AM10/4/12
to
In article <pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
While his opponent is speaking he needs to suppress that look of a six
year old, bursting to answer the teacher's question to the class.
year old, bursting to answer the teacher's question to the class.
Howard Brazee
Oct 4, 2012, 9:32:31 AM10/4/12
to
>I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
>he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
>true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
I was at a public site with various celebrities talking about it
>he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
>true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
after. Dick Lamb (a liberal) said Romney was the winner, Leher was
the loser. Hank Brown (a conservative) said Obama had 10 lies, but
didn't mention any of Romney's lies.
>This was the best presidential debate in some time.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
William Clark
Oct 4, 2012, 9:34:31 AM10/4/12
to
In article <pj9q681a8tph4ctnd...@4ax.com>,
Obama needed to jump all over Romney's phoney numbers (the $716BN), and
his lack of detail in his own plans. I thought Obama looked tired, and
acted over cautiously. Perhaps he was, as you say, getting Mitten's
measure, and will be more assertive in the other debates. I agree that
Romney seemed dismissive of Lehrer, and interrupted with that shit-faced
grin of his far too often. I was waiting for Mitten to run over and
tackle Lehrer and cut his hair.
his lack of detail in his own plans. I thought Obama looked tired, and
acted over cautiously. Perhaps he was, as you say, getting Mitten's
measure, and will be more assertive in the other debates. I agree that
Romney seemed dismissive of Lehrer, and interrupted with that shit-faced
grin of his far too often. I was waiting for Mitten to run over and
tackle Lehrer and cut his hair.
Howard Brazee
Oct 4, 2012, 9:36:14 AM10/4/12
to
While it appeared good for Romney right now, he left lots of
ammunition for Obama to show Romney as someone who keeps changing his
mind.
On the other hand, he will have to campaign more against Ryan as being
different, which probably is better for the left, as it should be
running against the right - which means Congress.
ammunition for Obama to show Romney as someone who keeps changing his
mind.
On the other hand, he will have to campaign more against Ryan as being
different, which probably is better for the left, as it should be
running against the right - which means Congress.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 9:47:07 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:22:50 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
wrote:
I give Romney the edge. Seems like Obama was laying back. He had
several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
outright win for either though.
wrote:
several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
outright win for either though.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 9:48:20 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
wrote:
LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
them up without even reading them.
wrote:
them up without even reading them.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 9:59:04 AM10/4/12
to
some of which were window dressing and some absolutely false.
Moderate
Oct 4, 2012, 10:08:57 AM10/4/12
to
Sorry you object to people so much you dismiss them out of hand.
--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 10:14:16 AM10/4/12
to
destroyed.
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 10:15:57 AM10/4/12
to
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 10:16:40 AM10/4/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 10:25:00 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:08:57 -0500, "Moderate" <Nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>bkn...@conramp.net<> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >There was a clear loser.
>> >
>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>> them up without even reading them.
>
>Even you gave Romney the edge.
>
>Sorry you object to people so much you dismiss them out of hand.
I object to blatant bias. You're the poster boy for that.
wrote:
>
>
>bkn...@conramp.net<> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >There was a clear loser.
>> >
>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>> them up without even reading them.
>
>Even you gave Romney the edge.
>
>Sorry you object to people so much you dismiss them out of hand.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 10:27:01 AM10/4/12
to
be, even if Romney had puked all over himself. You're one that I
really didn't have to read.
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 11:06:23 AM10/4/12
to
Obama get pummeled like that.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 11:16:49 AM10/4/12
to
pummeling. Obama just didn't go for the jugular as he should have. I
can't imagine why he didn't bring up the 47% thing, or corrected
Romney on the $716 billion Medicare cuts, which he quoted erroneously
several times.
Do you really think that a plethora of votes changed last night????
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 11:48:14 AM10/4/12
to
pummeling. Obama looked stoned or something. Al Gore blamed it on the
altitude, lol.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 11:56:12 AM10/4/12
to
will be the guy there. I'm more interested in the voting polls which
will come out later.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 4, 2012, 11:57:44 AM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:48:20 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>>
>>There was a clear loser.
>>
>LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>them up without even reading them.
I score Obama as a big winner. He was obviously laying back and
letting Romney get ahead and overconfident. Like when you're playing
one-on-one with your little brother and you let him get ahead, and
then you slam dunk five in a row and throw the ball in his face.
That's called sarcasm for those of you that are slow.
Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.
crap:
>>
>>There was a clear loser.
>>
>LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>them up without even reading them.
letting Romney get ahead and overconfident. Like when you're playing
one-on-one with your little brother and you let him get ahead, and
then you slam dunk five in a row and throw the ball in his face.
That's called sarcasm for those of you that are slow.
Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 4, 2012, 12:07:11 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:14:16 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:
>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>>
>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
>> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
>> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>>
>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>>
>I don't think anybody on the left is claiming a win for Obama. He was
>destroyed.
Strangely none of the newspapers I read this morning was calling Obama
a winner. A week ago I would have predicted the media was already
writing their editorials and claming a home run for Obama. It seems I
can't predict them. I don't know how I'm going to do on football
betting this weekend, I can't pick a winner. I can't even pick my own
nose.
this crap:
>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>>
>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
>> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
>> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>>
>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>>
>I don't think anybody on the left is claiming a win for Obama. He was
>destroyed.
a winner. A week ago I would have predicted the media was already
writing their editorials and claming a home run for Obama. It seems I
can't predict them. I don't know how I'm going to do on football
betting this weekend, I can't pick a winner. I can't even pick my own
nose.
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 12:15:36 PM10/4/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:48:14 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Do you really think that a plethora of votes changed last night????
>>>
>> Not sure. I'm sure the polls will be out soon. It was indeed a
>> pummeling. Obama looked stoned or something. Al Gore blamed it on the
>> altitude, lol.
>
> The first polls will be on who won the debate and I'm sure that Romney
> will be the guy there. I'm more interested in the voting polls which
> will come out later.
>
Yes, I'm guessing tomorrow they will be out. CNN did a poll on the
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:48:14 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> Do you really think that a plethora of votes changed last night????
>>>
>> Not sure. I'm sure the polls will be out soon. It was indeed a
>> pummeling. Obama looked stoned or something. Al Gore blamed it on the
>> altitude, lol.
>
> The first polls will be on who won the debate and I'm sure that Romney
> will be the guy there. I'm more interested in the voting polls which
> will come out later.
>
debate and had Romney 67% to 25%. That's the only debate poll I've seen.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 12:32:03 PM10/4/12
to
Romney ahead...except an early one by Google....but it changed later.
Interesting one from Huffington.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 12:33:50 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 11:57:44 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:48:20 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>>
>>>There was a clear loser.
>>>
>>LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>>them up without even reading them.
>
>I score Obama as a big winner. He was obviously laying back and
>letting Romney get ahead and overconfident. Like when you're playing
>one-on-one with your little brother and you let him get ahead, and
>then you slam dunk five in a row and throw the ball in his face.
There are some who think that to be true.
>On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:48:20 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
>crap:
>
>>>
>>>There was a clear loser.
>>>
>>LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>>them up without even reading them.
>
>I score Obama as a big winner. He was obviously laying back and
>letting Romney get ahead and overconfident. Like when you're playing
>one-on-one with your little brother and you let him get ahead, and
>then you slam dunk five in a row and throw the ball in his face.
Dene
Oct 4, 2012, 12:45:45 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 6:48 am, bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
until the closing statements. Romney said specifics. Obama was
nebulous blah, blah, blah.
I thought Romney's biggest selling point was describing how he worked
with a Dem legislature and got things done, in contrast to O's
partisanship, especially in the first two years.
-Greg
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> In article <k4isj1$l7...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
> >> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
> >> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> >> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> >There was a clear loser.
>
> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
> them up without even reading them.
We are all biased but here is my take. I thought it was somewhat even
> >>>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
> >> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
> >> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> >> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> >There was a clear loser.
>
> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
> them up without even reading them.
until the closing statements. Romney said specifics. Obama was
nebulous blah, blah, blah.
I thought Romney's biggest selling point was describing how he worked
with a Dem legislature and got things done, in contrast to O's
partisanship, especially in the first two years.
-Greg
Dene
Oct 4, 2012, 12:46:39 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 8:16 am, bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:16:40 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
-Greg
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 10:06:23 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 09:16:40 -0500, MNMikeW <mnmiik...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>> bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article <k4isj1$l7...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
>
> >>>>> "Carbon" <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>>>>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>>>>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>>>>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >>>>>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >>>>>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
> >>>>>> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
> >>>>>> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> >>>>>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> >>>>> There was a clear loser.
>
> >>>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
> >>>> them up without even reading them.
>
> >>> You must not have watched it.
>
> >> Every boring minute, and knew exactly what your response to it would
> >> be, even if Romney had puked all over himself. You're one that I
> >> really didn't have to read.
>
> >I was expecting Romney to not do very well. It was a bit shocking seeing
> >Obama get pummeled like that.
>
> He wasn't as wooden as usual. He had the edge, but there was no
> pummeling. Obama just didn't go for the jugular as he should have. I
> can't imagine why he didn't bring up the 47% thing, or corrected
> Romney on the $716 billion Medicare cuts, which he quoted erroneously
> several times.
>
> Do you really think that a plethora of votes changed last night????
A plethora of independents....yes.
> >>>>>>>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>>>>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>>>>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>>>>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >>>>>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >>>>>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I suppose
> >>>>>> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though the
> >>>>>> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> >>>>>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> >>>>> There was a clear loser.
>
> >>>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
> >>>> them up without even reading them.
>
> >>> You must not have watched it.
>
> >> Every boring minute, and knew exactly what your response to it would
> >> be, even if Romney had puked all over himself. You're one that I
> >> really didn't have to read.
>
> >I was expecting Romney to not do very well. It was a bit shocking seeing
> >Obama get pummeled like that.
>
> He wasn't as wooden as usual. He had the edge, but there was no
> pummeling. Obama just didn't go for the jugular as he should have. I
> can't imagine why he didn't bring up the 47% thing, or corrected
> Romney on the $716 billion Medicare cuts, which he quoted erroneously
> several times.
>
> Do you really think that a plethora of votes changed last night????
-Greg
Dene
Oct 4, 2012, 12:51:38 PM10/4/12
to
On Oct 4, 6:47 am, bkni...@conramp.net wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:22:50 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
O's performance.
Perhaps his debate performance is genuine....in that he is way over
his head. That certainly can be said about his empty suit leadership
the last 4 years. Perhaps he is a campaigner with little substance
beyond that. Either way, I don't have any patience for 4 more years
of this. Time to let him go.
-Greg
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:22:50 -0500, "Moderate" <f...@fakeemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ><bkni...@conramp.net> wrote in message
> >news:km0q68tglvht5plhk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <k4isj1$l7...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
> >> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >So who do you think won?
>
> I give Romney the edge. Seems like Obama was laying back. He had
> several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
> I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
> outright win for either though.
Commentators on MSNBC, like Chris Matthews, seemed almost furious with
> >>>> A bloodbath.
>
> >>>Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>
> >>>Romney controlled the debate.
>
> >>>Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>
> >> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> >So who do you think won?
>
> I give Romney the edge. Seems like Obama was laying back. He had
> several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
> I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
> outright win for either though.
O's performance.
Perhaps his debate performance is genuine....in that he is way over
his head. That certainly can be said about his empty suit leadership
the last 4 years. Perhaps he is a campaigner with little substance
beyond that. Either way, I don't have any patience for 4 more years
of this. Time to let him go.
-Greg
Lloyd
Oct 4, 2012, 2:31:58 PM10/4/12
to
In article
<759c8bf8-7269-468e...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
While I thought the winner, if there really is such a thing, in the
debate was Romney, I sure didn't hear any 'specifics' from him except
when he was specific about wrong figures about Obama's stuff.
All his 'plans' were just that. No specifics whatsoever.
As to O's partisanship, you must be joking! Mitch McConnell set the
tone from the very beginning and the party followed that guidance.
<759c8bf8-7269-468e...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,
debate was Romney, I sure didn't hear any 'specifics' from him except
when he was specific about wrong figures about Obama's stuff.
All his 'plans' were just that. No specifics whatsoever.
As to O's partisanship, you must be joking! Mitch McConnell set the
tone from the very beginning and the party followed that guidance.
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 2:55:10 PM10/4/12
to
"Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won."
Horva...@net.net
Oct 4, 2012, 3:19:13 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:51:38 -0700 (PDT), Dene <gds...@aol.com> wrote
this crap:
>>
>> I give Romney the edge. Seems like Obama was laying back. He had
>> several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
>> I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
>> outright win for either though.
>
>Commentators on MSNBC, like Chris Matthews, seemed almost furious with
>O's performance.
>
>Perhaps his debate performance is genuine....in that he is way over
>his head. That certainly can be said about his empty suit leadership
>the last 4 years. Perhaps he is a campaigner with little substance
>beyond that. Either way, I don't have any patience for 4 more years
>of this. Time to let him go.
>
>-Greg
It's painfully obvious that Obama can't put a sentence together
without looking into a teleprompter. His stammering and hesitations
were quite clear.
this crap:
>>
>> I give Romney the edge. Seems like Obama was laying back. He had
>> several opportunities to point out some errors and passed them up.
>> I've even seen some say that this was a ploy. Certainly not a
>> outright win for either though.
>
>Commentators on MSNBC, like Chris Matthews, seemed almost furious with
>O's performance.
>
>Perhaps his debate performance is genuine....in that he is way over
>his head. That certainly can be said about his empty suit leadership
>the last 4 years. Perhaps he is a campaigner with little substance
>beyond that. Either way, I don't have any patience for 4 more years
>of this. Time to let him go.
>
>-Greg
without looking into a teleprompter. His stammering and hesitations
were quite clear.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 4, 2012, 3:25:50 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 13:31:58 -0500, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote
this crap:
>While I thought the winner, if there really is such a thing, in the
>debate was Romney, I sure didn't hear any 'specifics' from him except
>when he was specific about wrong figures about Obama's stuff.
>
>All his 'plans' were just that. No specifics whatsoever.
I thought he was pretty clear when he said he would give tax breaks to
small businesses enabling them to hire more workers and expand the tax
base. That's what I would do. It's pretty obvious that if you want
the economy moving we should make the US more business friendly.
this crap:
>While I thought the winner, if there really is such a thing, in the
>debate was Romney, I sure didn't hear any 'specifics' from him except
>when he was specific about wrong figures about Obama's stuff.
>
>All his 'plans' were just that. No specifics whatsoever.
small businesses enabling them to hire more workers and expand the tax
base. That's what I would do. It's pretty obvious that if you want
the economy moving we should make the US more business friendly.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 3:25:58 PM10/4/12
to
Obama didn't stammer.
MNMikeW
Oct 4, 2012, 3:31:39 PM10/4/12
to
Horva...@net.net
Oct 4, 2012, 3:35:32 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:25:58 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
He sure did. Check out a replay.
crap:
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 4, 2012, 3:38:06 PM10/4/12
to
Romney. He just didn't use his weapons at hand.
They both made some gaffes and exaggerations.
Lloyd
Oct 4, 2012, 3:52:13 PM10/4/12
to
In article <feor68hs0uob7br9u...@4ax.com>,
Yes, he did say that, and then he said those would offset with
reductions of write-offs and such, essentially not changing the actual
money business paid out to the gov't.
reductions of write-offs and such, essentially not changing the actual
money business paid out to the gov't.
FDK
Oct 4, 2012, 4:31:21 PM10/4/12
to
"Lloyd" wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-FCE6...@news.eternal-september.org...
people have no jobs, collect food stamps and welfare, default on loans
and mortgages, the Gov. collects no taxes, but instead pays out for a
net loss.
FDK
Oct 4, 2012, 4:33:40 PM10/4/12
to
"MNMikeW" wrote in message news:ad5jto...@mid.individual.net...
Carbon wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A bloodbath.
>>>
>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>>>
>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>>>
>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>>
>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I
> suppose
> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though
> the
> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
>>>> A bloodbath.
>>>
>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>>>
>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>>>
>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>>
>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>
> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I
> suppose
> he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner, though
> the
> true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>
> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
>I don't think anybody on the left is claiming a win for Obama. He was
>destroyed.
Remember how he played it cute last week, claiming Romney was a good
>destroyed.
debater.
Without a teleprompter, "Preacher" Obama fails.
FDK
Oct 4, 2012, 4:35:49 PM10/4/12
to
"MNMikeW" wrote in message news:ad66gr...@mid.individual.net...
looked pretty desperate.
Carbon
Oct 4, 2012, 6:39:19 PM10/4/12
to
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:59:04 -0500, bknight wrote:
> On 04 Oct 2012 04:33:21 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> some of which were window dressing and some absolutely false.
I prefer wonkish policy debates, where the combatants have to at least
put some effort into their lies, to previous debates with their endless
manipulative platitudes about patriotism and the like. This one was at
least intended for adults.
> On 04 Oct 2012 04:33:21 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <k4isj1$l7q$1...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> A bloodbath.
>>>>
>>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>>>>
>>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>>>
>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>>
>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I
>> suppose he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner,
>> though the true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>>
>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> I disagree Carbs. It was boring to hear them both throw out figures,
>> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 22:31:11 -0500, bknight wrote:
>>> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 23:05:07 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <k4isj1$l7q$1...@dont-email.me>, f...@aol.com says...
>>>>
>>>>> A bloodbath.
>>>>
>>>> Obama was always looking to Jim L to have him stop Romney's clock.
>>>>
>>>> Romney controlled the debate.
>>>>
>>>> Jim L couldn't talk because his mouth was full of Obama cock.
>>>
>>> Now comes the "unbiased" view from both sides. Laughable already.
>>
>> I thought Romney did very well. He looked a little stiff, but I
>> suppose he can't help that. I'm not sure there was a clear winner,
>> though the true believers on both sides will be declaring victory.
>>
>> This was the best presidential debate in some time.
>
> some of which were window dressing and some absolutely false.
I prefer wonkish policy debates, where the combatants have to at least
put some effort into their lies, to previous debates with their endless
manipulative platitudes about patriotism and the like. This one was at
least intended for adults.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Oct 4, 2012, 7:35:25 PM10/4/12
to
On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 7:34:10 PM UTC-7, FDK wrote:
> A bloodbath.
And it will be fun to watch from now to the election. Obama's team is desperate. How do you whip an outclassed loser enough to make him run fast enough to beat a thoroughbred? You can only kill him trying. So the chicago thugs behind Obama will show their class and destroy themselves and their candidate. Romney will simply remain quiet while they do it. "Never interfere when your opponent is self-destructing!"
Larry
> A bloodbath.
And it will be fun to watch from now to the election. Obama's team is desperate. How do you whip an outclassed loser enough to make him run fast enough to beat a thoroughbred? You can only kill him trying. So the chicago thugs behind Obama will show their class and destroy themselves and their candidate. Romney will simply remain quiet while they do it. "Never interfere when your opponent is self-destructing!"
Larry
Moderate
Oct 4, 2012, 8:10:18 PM10/4/12
to
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote in message
news:5f303257-4a99-4147...@googlegroups.com...
lifetime I have never seen a more devisive President. Romney consitently
shows a williness to reach across the aisle. Obama continues to put up
walls. He is not an ineffective leader. He is not a leader at all.
BAR
Oct 4, 2012, 9:48:11 PM10/4/12
to
In article <ad66gr...@mid.individual.net>, mnmi...@aol.com says...
The usual speech pattern for someone who is trying to figure out what he
is supposed to say rather than what he really believes.
is supposed to say rather than what he really believes.
Carbon
Oct 5, 2012, 7:36:57 AM10/5/12
to
much smoother with his lies.
BAR
Oct 5, 2012, 7:47:44 AM10/5/12
to
Carbon
Oct 5, 2012, 7:51:59 AM10/5/12
to
BAR
Oct 5, 2012, 7:54:36 AM10/5/12
to
Horva...@net.net
Oct 5, 2012, 8:12:11 AM10/5/12
to
On 05 Oct 2012 11:51:59 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote this crap:
>>> And here Mitt did much better as well. He is a total RINO but he was
>>> much smoother with his lies.
>>
>> ABO
>
>How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest.
Apparently you didn't watch the same debate that I did. Obama's plan
for everything was to have new, more, and bigger government programs.
His answer to every question was to have a government program. OTOH I
heard Romney say that to cut government spending he would discontinue
some programs. He even told Lehrer that he was going to cut off PBS.
That's the way business is run. If one part isn't working or is
losing money you cut it off or sell it. You don't add to the problem.
wrote this crap:
>>> And here Mitt did much better as well. He is a total RINO but he was
>>> much smoother with his lies.
>>
>> ABO
>
>How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest.
for everything was to have new, more, and bigger government programs.
His answer to every question was to have a government program. OTOH I
heard Romney say that to cut government spending he would discontinue
some programs. He even told Lehrer that he was going to cut off PBS.
That's the way business is run. If one part isn't working or is
losing money you cut it off or sell it. You don't add to the problem.
Lloyd
Oct 5, 2012, 9:12:20 AM10/5/12
to
In article <pan.2012.10...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>,
You actually expect an answer?
With Romney you have to look at history and current yammerings and
actions. His past actions don't show him to be very conservative at
all, and in fact he is a progressive Republican.
But then shift to now, and all he talks are the conservative talking
points.
So IF he wins, which way will he govern? The answer is no one actually
knows. He is a crap shoot.
With Romney you have to look at history and current yammerings and
actions. His past actions don't show him to be very conservative at
all, and in fact he is a progressive Republican.
But then shift to now, and all he talks are the conservative talking
points.
So IF he wins, which way will he govern? The answer is no one actually
knows. He is a crap shoot.
MNMikeW
Oct 5, 2012, 9:44:33 AM10/5/12
to
MNMikeW
Oct 5, 2012, 10:30:00 AM10/5/12
to
years. That just may have erased Obama's shitty debate performance.
William Clark
Oct 5, 2012, 10:33:31 AM10/5/12
to
William Clark
Oct 5, 2012, 2:10:49 PM10/5/12
to
In article <ad8978...@mid.individual.net>,
Not to mention last month's new job total re-adjusted upwards by almost
50%. Hmmmm. . . .perhaps Mitten can lie his way out of that one, too.
50%. Hmmmm. . . .perhaps Mitten can lie his way out of that one, too.
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2012, 5:34:41 PM10/5/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 10:33:31 -0400, William Clark
<cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest.
>
>Well, he's white, for one thing :-)
And he doesn't drink beer.
<cl...@nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>> How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest.
>
>Well, he's white, for one thing :-)
(Presidential elections are often about things that have nothing to do
with one's ability to do the job of president).
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
BAR
Oct 5, 2012, 6:44:12 PM10/5/12
to
In article <lloydparsons-6961...@news.eternal-
september.org>, lloydp...@me.com says...
He can't be any worse than Obama.
september.org>, lloydp...@me.com says...
Carbon
Oct 5, 2012, 7:20:08 PM10/5/12
to
> With Romney you have to look at history and current yammerings and
> actions. His past actions don't show him to be very conservative at
> all, and in fact he is a progressive Republican.
>
> But then shift to now, and all he talks are the conservative talking
> points.
>
> So IF he wins, which way will he govern? The answer is no one
> actually knows. He is a crap shoot.
telling him what to say to appeal to moderate Republicans. After all,
the batshit wing of the party did their job in letting him get the
nomination, and now he doesn't need them any more. If he gets elected,
he will suddenly have a bunch of Democrats to deal with and he will be
as liberal as the Romney that came up with Romneycare.
The Mittster is a problem solving kind of guy.
FDK
Oct 5, 2012, 9:35:18 PM10/5/12
to
"Lloyd" wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-6961...@news.eternal-september.org...
POS Obama is just getting started in taking America apart.
la...@pivotforpower.com
Oct 5, 2012, 10:04:53 PM10/5/12
to
On Friday, October 5, 2012 5:12:08 AM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
> On 05 Oct 2012 11:51:59 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap: >>> And here Mitt did much better as well. He is a total RINO but he was >>> much smoother with his lies. >> >> ABO > >How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest. Apparently you didn't watch the same debate that I did. Obama's plan for everything was to have new, more, and bigger government programs. His answer to every question was to have a government program. OTOH I heard Romney say that to cut government spending he would discontinue some programs. He even told Lehrer that he was going to cut off PBS. That's the way business is run. If one part isn't working or is losing money you cut it off or sell it. You don't add to the problem. Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.
Romney could shut down each and every "plan" by Obama with a simple unanswerable question, "where has that worked?" Unless he is proposing that the USA embark on a wild gamble, that ends the debate! Europe and American history is replete with examples of attempts at Socialism and even Communism. It never works!
> On 05 Oct 2012 11:51:59 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote this crap: >>> And here Mitt did much better as well. He is a total RINO but he was >>> much smoother with his lies. >> >> ABO > >How different from Obama do you think this guy really is? Be honest. Apparently you didn't watch the same debate that I did. Obama's plan for everything was to have new, more, and bigger government programs. His answer to every question was to have a government program. OTOH I heard Romney say that to cut government spending he would discontinue some programs. He even told Lehrer that he was going to cut off PBS. That's the way business is run. If one part isn't working or is losing money you cut it off or sell it. You don't add to the problem. Vote for Romney. Repeal the nightmares.
Larry
Alan Baker
Oct 5, 2012, 10:12:10 PM10/5/12
to
In article <7c642cb5-3589-4482...@googlegroups.com>,
How would that work with Obamacare?
Romney asks, "Where has that worked?", and Obama replies "In
Massachusetts, when you were governor. Did you forget so soon?".
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Romney asks, "Where has that worked?", and Obama replies "In
Massachusetts, when you were governor. Did you forget so soon?".
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2012, 10:18:02 PM10/5/12
to
On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:04:53 -0700 (PDT), "la...@pivotforpower.com"
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>Romney could shut down each and every "plan" by Obama with a simple unanswerable question, "where has that worked?"
>Unless he is proposing that the USA embark on a wild gamble, that ends the debate! Europe and American history is replete with
>examples of attempts at Socialism and even Communism. It never works!
Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
<la...@pivotforpower.com> wrote:
>
>Romney could shut down each and every "plan" by Obama with a simple unanswerable question, "where has that worked?"
>Unless he is proposing that the USA embark on a wild gamble, that ends the debate! Europe and American history is replete with
>examples of attempts at Socialism and even Communism. It never works!
roads and fire stations, for instance. It always works to some
degree, it is getting the right balance in changing conditions that is
hard.
But trickle down hasn't worked, and austerity hasn't worked.
Lloyd
Oct 5, 2012, 10:50:03 PM10/5/12
to
In article <UdqdnRnIZflW__LN...@giganews.com>,
Wild ass guess on your part. But you are welcome to believe that.
There is nothing in Romney's past actions that indicate he will be much
different from Obama in many, but not all, respects.
There is nothing in Romney's past actions that indicate he will be much
different from Obama in many, but not all, respects.
Howard Brazee
Oct 5, 2012, 10:58:26 PM10/5/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:50:03 -0500, Lloyd <lloydp...@me.com> wrote:
>> > So IF he wins, which way will he govern? The answer is no one actually
>> > knows. He is a crap shoot.
>>
>> He can't be any worse than Obama.
>
>Wild ass guess on your part. But you are welcome to believe that.
>There is nothing in Romney's past actions that indicate he will be much
>different from Obama in many, but not all, respects.
It doesn't matter. When a Republican does something, it is good.
>> > So IF he wins, which way will he govern? The answer is no one actually
>> > knows. He is a crap shoot.
>>
>> He can't be any worse than Obama.
>
>Wild ass guess on your part. But you are welcome to believe that.
>There is nothing in Romney's past actions that indicate he will be much
>different from Obama in many, but not all, respects.
When a Democrat does the same thing, then it is bad. Haven't you
noticed?
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 1:33:33 AM10/6/12
to
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:
>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>roads and fire stations, for instance.
Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
on a national level.
wrote this crap:
>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>roads and fire stations, for instance.
always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
on a national level.
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2012, 8:46:13 AM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:33:33 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote this crap:
>
>>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>>roads and fire stations, for instance.
>
>Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
>always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
>on a national level.
So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>wrote this crap:
>
>>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>>roads and fire stations, for instance.
>
>Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
>always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
>on a national level.
FDK
Oct 6, 2012, 9:49:54 AM10/6/12
to
"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-0284B...@news.shawcable.net...
How does it work in Canada, where you have to wait a year before
getting necessary treatment? Canadians flock to the USA for serious
health issues.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 10:17:27 AM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 06:46:13 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
the context of a democratic system.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:33:33 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>wrote this crap:
>>
>>>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>>>roads and fire stations, for instance.
>>
>>Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
>>always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
>>on a national level.
>
>So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:33:33 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>>wrote this crap:
>>
>>>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
>>>roads and fire stations, for instance.
>>
>>Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
>>always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
>>on a national level.
>
>So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
the context of a democratic system.
--------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2012, 12:03:07 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:17:27 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
>political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
>socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
>of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
>for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
>proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
>of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
>arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
>over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
>socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
>the context of a democratic system.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
You don't think roads are produced by the state?
>That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
>political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
>socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
>of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
>for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
>proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
>of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
>arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
>over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
>socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
>the context of a democratic system.
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>
>I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 12:12:20 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:03:07 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:17:27 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
>>political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
>>socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
>>of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
>>for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
>>proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
>>of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
>>arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
>>over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
>>socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
>>the context of a democratic system.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
>
>You don't think roads are produced by the state?
I wouldn't say they are produced. I'd say they were built. By
contractors. With money from the state. So the state really produces
nothing.
wrote this crap:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:17:27 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
>>That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
>>political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
>>socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
>>of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
>>for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
>>proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
>>of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
>>arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
>>over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
>>socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
>>the context of a democratic system.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
>
>You don't think roads are produced by the state?
contractors. With money from the state. So the state really produces
nothing.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 6, 2012, 12:16:03 PM10/6/12
to
stations though.
Hollis2
Oct 6, 2012, 12:29:18 PM10/6/12
to
Most libertarians will concede that this is a legitimate function of
government. Even Social Security and Medicare are not socialist programs.
Moderate
Oct 6, 2012, 3:46:15 PM10/6/12
to
bkn...@conramp.net<> wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >There was a clear loser.
> >
> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
> them up without even reading them.
Of course, 2/3 of the country saw it the same as I did. Your bias is overwhelming and you are oblivious to it.
--
Android Usenet Reader
http://android.newsgroupstats.hk
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 6, 2012, 5:31:51 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 14:46:15 -0500, "Moderate" <Nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>bkn...@conramp.net<> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >There was a clear loser.
>> >
>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>> them up without even reading them.
>
>Of course, 2/3 of the country saw it the same as I did. Your bias is overwhelming and you are oblivious to it.
LOL. It was clear to me that Romney bettered Obama. My statement
above was regarding the immediacy of the OP's post.
There was one thing that jumped out at me though. Jim Lehrer
demonstrated an exact definition of Moderator; an ineffective,
unneeded, under whelming wimp without balls.
Good handle wimp.
wrote:
>
>
>bkn...@conramp.net<> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 05:25:18 -0500, "Moderate" <fa...@fakeemail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >There was a clear loser.
>> >
>> LOL. As I said, here come those "unbiased" opinions. You could mark
>> them up without even reading them.
>
>Of course, 2/3 of the country saw it the same as I did. Your bias is overwhelming and you are oblivious to it.
above was regarding the immediacy of the OP's post.
There was one thing that jumped out at me though. Jim Lehrer
demonstrated an exact definition of Moderator; an ineffective,
unneeded, under whelming wimp without balls.
Good handle wimp.
Carbon
Oct 6, 2012, 6:41:40 PM10/6/12
to
Romney was very aggressive, too aggressive really. He did a decent job
of denouncing Romneycare by blaming it on all the Democrats in Mass.
It's a joke, but the right will want to believe it. Obama scored with
the lack of specifics in all of Romney's plans. But, he was curiously
muted. I gather he was flat for the entire debate. The next two should
be interesting
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 7:03:27 PM10/6/12
to
On 06 Oct 2012 22:41:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote this crap:
>In my case I was migrating databases and only saw the last 15 minutes.
>Romney was very aggressive, too aggressive really. He did a decent job
>of denouncing Romneycare by blaming it on all the Democrats in Mass.
>It's a joke, but the right will want to believe it. Obama scored with
>the lack of specifics in all of Romney's plans. But, he was curiously
>muted. I gather he was flat for the entire debate. The next two should
>be interesting
I predict Obama will be more aggressive and animated because just
before the debate he'll do a line of cocaine.
wrote this crap:
>In my case I was migrating databases and only saw the last 15 minutes.
>Romney was very aggressive, too aggressive really. He did a decent job
>of denouncing Romneycare by blaming it on all the Democrats in Mass.
>It's a joke, but the right will want to believe it. Obama scored with
>the lack of specifics in all of Romney's plans. But, he was curiously
>muted. I gather he was flat for the entire debate. The next two should
>be interesting
before the debate he'll do a line of cocaine.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 6, 2012, 7:05:39 PM10/6/12
to
On 06 Oct 2012 22:41:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
I just couldn't understand why Obama was so reluctant to call Romney
on some of his overstatements. He definitely lost the debate by
default because Romney sure wasn't doing anything worthwhile. There
was almost no life in Obama.
Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
Duh.
Moderate
Oct 6, 2012, 7:06:54 PM10/6/12
to
Howard Brazee<how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:33:33 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
> >On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 20:18:02 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> >wrote this crap:
> >
> >>Every government has some socialism. Nobody wants to get rid of
> >>roads and fire stations, for instance.
> >
> >Most roads are built at the state or local level. Fire stations are
> >always at the local level. I can't see how a fire station would work
> >on a national level.
> So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
Carbon
Oct 6, 2012, 7:13:34 PM10/6/12
to
Carbon
Oct 6, 2012, 7:24:41 PM10/6/12
to
of plutocrats he had at the time, it was a completely reasonable thing
to say. But now he needs to appeal more to the center and luckily, he
now believes something completely different. Good for Mitt.
The next debate will be very interesting. Obama will come out swinging,
as will the Mittster looking for more blood. And from the start the
moderators will do everything they can to keep the festivities from
getting away from them as it did from Lehrer.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 6, 2012, 8:00:34 PM10/6/12
to
On 06 Oct 2012 23:24:41 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bknight wrote:
>> On 06 Oct 2012 22:41:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>> Duh.
>
>The thing is, Mitt was completely serious at the time. For the audience
>of plutocrats he had at the time, it was a completely reasonable thing
>to say. But now he needs to appeal more to the center and luckily, he
>now believes something completely different. Good for Mitt.
Good for Mitt? This is precisely why I am opposed to him. He's
wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
Ryan.
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bknight wrote:
>> On 06 Oct 2012 22:41:40 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>> Duh.
>
>The thing is, Mitt was completely serious at the time. For the audience
>of plutocrats he had at the time, it was a completely reasonable thing
>to say. But now he needs to appeal more to the center and luckily, he
>now believes something completely different. Good for Mitt.
wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
>
>The next debate will be very interesting. Obama will come out swinging,
>as will the Mittster looking for more blood. And from the start the
>moderators will do everything they can to keep the festivities from
>getting away from them as it did from Lehrer.
He'd better do just that. I don't think that Biden will back off on
>The next debate will be very interesting. Obama will come out swinging,
>as will the Mittster looking for more blood. And from the start the
>moderators will do everything they can to keep the festivities from
>getting away from them as it did from Lehrer.
Ryan.
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2012, 8:35:20 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>I just couldn't understand why Obama was so reluctant to call Romney
>on some of his overstatements. He definitely lost the debate by
>default because Romney sure wasn't doing anything worthwhile. There
>was almost no life in Obama.
>
>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
Just a guess. He would rather keep the 47% statement where it is
>I just couldn't understand why Obama was so reluctant to call Romney
>on some of his overstatements. He definitely lost the debate by
>default because Romney sure wasn't doing anything worthwhile. There
>was almost no life in Obama.
>
>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
(with his voice saying it in ads for Obama), without Romney changing
it. Debates aren't where the undecided voters will be swayed. In
the debate, Romney has very different positions than he had in the
Republican race, as the people he needs to persuade are different
people.
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2012, 8:38:20 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 19:00:34 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>Good for Mitt? This is precisely why I am opposed to him. He's
>wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
>the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
>side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
>but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
>middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
Even if we double Romney's wealth (into items that aren't reported in
>Good for Mitt? This is precisely why I am opposed to him. He's
>wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
>the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
>side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
>but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
>middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
the race), he is worth far less than many of those who were in the
same venture capital business. Does that mean the many billionaire
peers were better businessmen?
Howard Brazee
Oct 6, 2012, 8:39:36 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:06:54 -0500, "Moderate" <Nos...@nomail.com>
wrote:
>> So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
>
>
>You don't really know what socialism is.
>--
Yeah, it's a magic word that doesn't mean what it used to mean, as
people don't count the aspects of socialism that they like.
wrote:
>> So? Those are governments. Every government has some socialism.
>
>
>You don't really know what socialism is.
>--
people don't count the aspects of socialism that they like.
Carbon
Oct 6, 2012, 8:40:13 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 19:00:34 -0500, bknight wrote:
> On 06 Oct 2012 23:24:41 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bknight wrote:
>>
>>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>>> Duh.
>>
>> The thing is, Mitt was completely serious at the time. For the
>> audience of plutocrats he had at the time, it was a completely
>> reasonable thing to say. But now he needs to appeal more to the
>> center and luckily, he now believes something completely different.
>> Good for Mitt.
>
> Good for Mitt? This is precisely why I am opposed to him. He's
> wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
> the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
> side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
> but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
> middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
I was joking, of course. The guy has no center.
> On 06 Oct 2012 23:24:41 GMT, Carbon <nob...@nospam.tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bknight wrote:
>>
>>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>>> Duh.
>>
>> The thing is, Mitt was completely serious at the time. For the
>> audience of plutocrats he had at the time, it was a completely
>> reasonable thing to say. But now he needs to appeal more to the
>> center and luckily, he now believes something completely different.
>> Good for Mitt.
>
> Good for Mitt? This is precisely why I am opposed to him. He's
> wavered on so many issues that it's startling. Now that he's gotten
> the far right to get his nomination it's reversion time to his liberal
> side. I find him absolutely untrustworthy. Obama's no great shakes,
> but damned sure better than this upper class snob pretending to be
> middle class. Hey, that's a change for RSG. :-)
>> The next debate will be very interesting. Obama will come out
>> swinging, as will the Mittster looking for more blood. And from the
>> start the moderators will do everything they can to keep the
>> festivities from getting away from them as it did from Lehrer.
>
> He'd better do just that. I don't think that Biden will back off on
> Ryan.
slugfest from here on in.
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 6, 2012, 8:41:46 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:35:20 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
>>I just couldn't understand why Obama was so reluctant to call Romney
>>on some of his overstatements. He definitely lost the debate by
>>default because Romney sure wasn't doing anything worthwhile. There
>>was almost no life in Obama.
>>
>>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>
>
>Just a guess. He would rather keep the 47% statement where it is
>(with his voice saying it in ads for Obama), without Romney changing
>it.
Now Romney has changed it, and Obama should make a point of that too.
>Debates aren't where the undecided voters will be swayed. In
>the debate, Romney has very different positions than he had in the
>Republican race, as the people he needs to persuade are different
>people.
Then Obama should've pointed that out.
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote:
>
>>I just couldn't understand why Obama was so reluctant to call Romney
>>on some of his overstatements. He definitely lost the debate by
>>default because Romney sure wasn't doing anything worthwhile. There
>>was almost no life in Obama.
>>
>>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>
>
>Just a guess. He would rather keep the 47% statement where it is
>(with his voice saying it in ads for Obama), without Romney changing
>it.
>Debates aren't where the undecided voters will be swayed. In
>the debate, Romney has very different positions than he had in the
>Republican race, as the people he needs to persuade are different
>people.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 10:15:21 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:38:20 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote this crap:
>Even if we double Romney's wealth (into items that aren't reported in
>the race), he is worth far less than many of those who were in the
>same venture capital business. Does that mean the many billionaire
>peers were better businessmen?
I don't see what the big deal is about his wealth. Few complained
that John Kerry was wealthy, or John Edwards, or the Kennedys, or the
Roosevelts.
wrote this crap:
>Even if we double Romney's wealth (into items that aren't reported in
>the race), he is worth far less than many of those who were in the
>same venture capital business. Does that mean the many billionaire
>peers were better businessmen?
that John Kerry was wealthy, or John Edwards, or the Kennedys, or the
Roosevelts.
Horva...@net.net
Oct 6, 2012, 10:20:13 PM10/6/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
crap:
>
>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>Duh.
I'm sure Romney had a prepared answer for that, and Obama was well
aware of it.
crap:
>
>Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>Duh.
aware of it.
Carbon
Oct 7, 2012, 2:45:31 AM10/7/12
to
On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 22:20:13 -0400, Horvath1758 wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>> Duh.
>
> I'm sure Romney had a prepared answer for that, and Obama was well
> aware of it.
OMG I agree with Horvath. I feel kind of weird about it.
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 18:05:39 -0500, bkn...@conramp.net wrote this
> crap:
>
>> Why didn't he raise the 47% question? Incidentally, Romney has now
>> said "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong".
>> Duh.
>
> I'm sure Romney had a prepared answer for that, and Obama was well
> aware of it.
BAR
Oct 7, 2012, 9:49:18 AM10/7/12
to
In article <mfl0789k8c0q4g5ag...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...
a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
actually build the roads.
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:17:27 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
> >That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
> >political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
> >socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
> >of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
> >for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
> >proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
> >of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
> >arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
> >over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
> >socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
> >the context of a democratic system.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
>
> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
The government is not the producer of the roads. The government is just
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2012 10:17:27 -0400, Horva...@net.net wrote:
>
> >That hardly meets Wikipedia's definition of Socialism.
> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of
> >political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary
> >socialism. Proponents of state socialism advocate the nationalisation
> >of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy
> >for implementing socialism. In contrast, libertarian socialism
> >proposes the traditional view of direct worker's control of the means
> >of production and opposes the use of state power to achieve such an
> >arrangement, opposing both parliamentary politics and state ownership
> >over the means of production. Democratic socialism seeks to establish
> >socialism through democratic processes and propagate its ideals within
> >the context of a democratic system.
> >--------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >I don't see anything there about fire stations and roads.
>
> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
actually build the roads.
BAR
Oct 7, 2012, 9:53:49 AM10/7/12
to
In article <vrj178lpiphn3o1a0...@4ax.com>,
bkn...@conramp.net says...
All Romney has to say is that he evolved, just like Obama evolved last
summer when Biden put him in the corner with the homosexual issue.
bkn...@conramp.net says...
summer when Biden put him in the corner with the homosexual issue.
Howard Brazee
Oct 7, 2012, 12:46:05 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:53:49 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> >Debates aren't where the undecided voters will be swayed. In
>> >the debate, Romney has very different positions than he had in the
>> >Republican race, as the people he needs to persuade are different
>> >people.
>>
>> Then Obama should've pointed that out.
>
>All Romney has to say is that he evolved, just like Obama evolved last
>summer when Biden put him in the corner with the homosexual issue.
In real life, we should want leaders who can evolve. But this is an
>> >Debates aren't where the undecided voters will be swayed. In
>> >the debate, Romney has very different positions than he had in the
>> >Republican race, as the people he needs to persuade are different
>> >people.
>>
>> Then Obama should've pointed that out.
>
>All Romney has to say is that he evolved, just like Obama evolved last
>summer when Biden put him in the corner with the homosexual issue.
election, and we have seen that pointing out that your opponent says
one thing to his party and another to the general election is an
effective strategy.
Howard Brazee
Oct 7, 2012, 12:47:00 PM10/7/12
to
On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:49:18 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
>
>The government is not the producer of the roads. The government is just
>a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
>actually build the roads.
And that doesn't happen in countries that you would define as
>> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
>
>The government is not the producer of the roads. The government is just
>a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
>actually build the roads.
socialistic?
BAR
Oct 7, 2012, 1:28:24 PM10/7/12
to
In article <dfc378h4q1v0ln6c4...@4ax.com>,
how...@brazee.net says...
how...@brazee.net says...
>
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:49:18 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
> >
> >The government is not the producer of the roads. The government is just
> >a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
> >actually build the roads.
>
> And that doesn't happen in countries that you would define as
> socialistic?
Do you own your body?
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2012 09:49:18 -0400, BAR <Nob...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> You don't think roads are produced by the state?
> >
> >The government is not the producer of the roads. The government is just
> >a pass through for the money from the taxpayers to the business who
> >actually build the roads.
>
> And that doesn't happen in countries that you would define as
> socialistic?
bkn...@conramp.net
Oct 7, 2012, 1:31:24 PM10/7/12
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages