Listening to a Liar
∅baMa∅ Tse Dung
themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite
convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and
sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything.
No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of
President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised
address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But,
if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led
into something much worse than being swindled out of their money.
One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all
the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He
tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of
the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program
that would not take effect until 2013!
Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass
the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately,
then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for
years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential
election?
If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put
it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why
not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential
election?
If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately,
then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of
holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by
public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it
make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of
life and death?
If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we
believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to
get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law
before the public understood what was in it.
Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public
experienced what its actual consequences would be.
Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way
this administration has acted on a wide range of issues.
Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was
successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just
two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days,
while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation,
the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September
2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some
economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010.
What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out
into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and
the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power
is what politics is all about.
The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those
seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the
economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent
debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of
staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when
"it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."
There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do
things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the
public realizes what is happening.
The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from
financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of
the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed
by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may
wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like,
until it is too late.
What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as
what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it.
http://www.tsowell.com/
http://townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
And you're not credible.
Mike
GreenBlood
wrote:
"I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
"I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
for five days.� = LIE
"I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
You see, it's kind of a pattern.
PC
"GreenBlood" <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in message
news:o3uia51junm8tdoqp...@4ax.com...
"You will be allowed to choose the coverage you want" - the current bill
forces you into the public option if you lose your insurance. I am
interested to see if you can later opt out of the public option and choose
the coverage you want.
vtc
Listening to a liar? You must mean drippy sex, eye-patch panties
spanking, republican family values hypocrite Mike Duvall who was caught
blathering into a microphone that he thought was off about banging a
female Sempra Energy lobbyist. Duvall was of course on the energy
committee. After resigning, he now claims that he made the whole story
up & if his wife buys that rubbish I pity her. She should get tested for
HIV & STD's immediately.
Since that story isn't going to fly expect him to invoke God any minute
now before recanting his resignation.
No wonder citizens are getting shafted on their power & gas bills.
Wonder how much that chick was paid to do sexual favors for the nasty
old fat pig if his microphone bragging was true.
Anyway now that Duvall has claimed that he made it all up he's opened
the door for that woman to sock him with a big defamation lawsuit & it's
not going to help him one iota.
One thing is for certain Duvall will not be getting anymore sexual
favors from the lobbyist crowd now that he's resigned.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> >> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
> >
> >And you're not credible.
> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
You'll have to provide a real quote; "earmarks" cannot be banned. They
could only be removed by line-item vetos, which was declared unconstitutional
by the Supreme Court.
> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
> for five days.? = LIE
Which bills, please?
Mike
jus
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
>
> >?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> >> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
>
> >And you're not credible.
>
> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
>
> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
> for five days.” = LIE
>
> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
>
> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
Kind of like the previous administration. Pick your poison, McCain
wouldn't have done squat. His incompetence was proven when he chose
his running mate.
Free Lunch
wi.general:
>
>"GreenBlood" <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in message
>news:o3uia51junm8tdoqp...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>>?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
>>>> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
>>>
>>>And you're not credible.
>>
>> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
>>
>> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
>> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
>> for five days." = LIE
>>
>> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
>>
>>
>> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
>
>"You will be allowed to choose the coverage you want" - the current bill
>forces you into the public option if you lose your insurance.
Show me the specific language in the bill that supports your claim.
> I am
>interested to see if you can later opt out of the public option and choose
>the coverage you want.
Choice is choice.
GreenBlood
That's a very good question.
William Wallace
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
You missed this one.
"The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
illegally," he said. = LIE
The illegals who voted for him on his promise reform immigration are
already unhappy, as he is not moving fast enough for them on this
issue.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1758092,CST-NWS-immig08.article
--
"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the
comprehension of the weak" - John Adams
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>> >?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
>> >> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
>> >
>> >And you're not credible.
>
>> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
>
>You'll have to provide a real quote; "earmarks" cannot be banned. They
>could only be removed by line-item vetos, which was declared unconstitutional
>by the Supreme Court.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
>> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
>> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
>> for five days.? = LIE
>
>Which bills, please?
>
How about the big expensive one that nobody read because they got a
copy 12 hours before it was voted on?
Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
public view for 5 days?
GreenBlood
wrote:
We're talking about Dear Leader Obama. The OP mentioned his
credibility. How much credibility do you give to proven liars?
GreenBlood
So I'm assuming you have no response to the actual subject at hand?
vtc
> In article <o3uia51junm8tdoqp...@4ax.com>, GreenBlood
> <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>>
>>> ?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
>>>> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
>>> And you're not credible.
>> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
>>
>> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
>> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
>>
>> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
>>
>>
>> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
>
> You missed this one.
>
> "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
> illegally," he said. = LIE
>
> The illegals who voted for him on his promise reform immigration are
> already unhappy, as he is not moving fast enough for them on this
> issue.
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1758092,CST-NWS-immig08.article
>
OMG you nut bird illegals cannot vote but I suppose that ignorance is
bliss. You seem to be proud of being totally ignorant.
vtc
The republicans have been lying since day one concerning things like
pulling the plug on grandma, death panels, illegals, etc. yet these
republican hypocritical fear mongers have the audacity to call Obama a
liar. Excuse me while I barf.
Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
their constituents.
Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
other party. The do as I say not as I do party. The party of no when it
comes to helping average Americans. Experts at demolishing things like
the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but disaster in their wake.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> >> >> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
> >> >
> >> >And you're not credible.
> >
> >> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
> >
> >You'll have to provide a real quote; "earmarks" cannot be banned. They
> >could only be removed by line-item vetos, which was declared unconstitutional
> >by the Supreme Court.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
> Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
Putting aside that the clip is "mysteriously" cut off...
no, it's not.
He sez he's "going to", not "has".
> >> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
> >> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
> >> for five days.? = LIE
> >
> >Which bills, please?
> How about the big expensive one that nobody read because they got a
> copy 12 hours before it was voted on?
Which bills, please?
> Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
> public view for 5 days?
I'm not the one calling him a liar.
So, which bills please?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:22:45 -0700 (PDT), jus <jusf...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Sep 10, 5:10?pm, GreenBlood <green...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfes...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0.spea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> >> >> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
> >>
> >> >And you're not credible.
> >>
> >> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
> >>
> >> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
> >> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
> >> for five days.? ?= LIE
> >>
> >> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
> >>
> >> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
> >
> >Kind of like the previous administration. Pick your poison, McCain
> >wouldn't have done squat. His incompetence was proven when he chose
> >his running mate.
> We're talking about Dear Leader Obama. The OP mentioned his
> credibility. How much credibility do you give to proven liars?
You're not much of a libertarian, are you?
Mike
PC
"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:356ja59b7sq42ka8i...@4ax.com...
>>"You will be allowed to choose the coverage you want" - the current bill
>>forces you into the public option if you lose your insurance.
>
> Show me the specific language in the bill that supports your claim.
>
http://brain-jockey.com/when-im-wrong-im-rightthe-truth-about-private-health-insurance-and-reforms/
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> >Kind of like the previous administration. Pick your poison, McCain
>> >wouldn't have done squat. His incompetence was proven when he chose
>> >his running mate.
>
>> We're talking about Dear Leader Obama. The OP mentioned his
>> credibility. How much credibility do you give to proven liars?
>
>You're not much of a libertarian, are you?
Sure am.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
>
>> Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
>
>Putting aside that the clip is "mysteriously" cut off...
>
>no, it's not.
>
>He sez he's "going to", not "has".
WHEN?
>> Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
>> public view for 5 days?
>
>I'm not the one calling him a liar.
No, I am.
>So, which bills please?
You don't follow along too well, do you?
Take your pick. He hasn't put ANY of the bills he has signed on the
website.
GreenBlood
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm assuming you have no response to the actual subject at hand?
>>
>>
>>> Listening to a liar? You must mean drippy sex, eye-patch panties
>>> spanking, republican family values hypocrite Mike Duvall who was caught
>>> blathering into a microphone that he thought was off about banging a
>>> female Sempra Energy lobbyist. Duvall was of course on the energy
>>> committee. After resigning, he now claims that he made the whole story
>>> up & if his wife buys that rubbish I pity her. She should get tested for
>>> HIV & STD's immediately.
>
>The republicans have been lying since day one concerning things like
>pulling the plug on grandma, death panels, illegals, etc. yet these
>republican hypocritical fear mongers have the audacity to call Obama a
>liar. Excuse me while I barf.
>
>Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
>drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
>their constituents.
At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the business of
setting up kiddy whore houses.
>Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>other party.
> The party of no when it
>comes to helping average Americans.
You mean like helping average Americans set up international underage
sex trafficking houses?
> Experts at demolishing things like
>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but disaster in their wake.
Like Carter did?
GreenBlood
>GreenBlood wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>> So I'm assuming you have no response to the actual subject at hand?
>>
>>
>>> Listening to a liar? You must mean drippy sex, eye-patch panties
>>> spanking, republican family values hypocrite Mike Duvall who was caught
>>> blathering into a microphone that he thought was off about banging a
>>> female Sempra Energy lobbyist. Duvall was of course on the energy
>>> committee. After resigning, he now claims that he made the whole story
>>> up & if his wife buys that rubbish I pity her. She should get tested for
>>> HIV & STD's immediately.
>
>The republicans have been lying since day one concerning things like
>pulling the plug on grandma, death panels, illegals, etc. yet these
>republican hypocritical fear mongers have the audacity to call Obama a
>liar. Excuse me while I barf.
>
>Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
>drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
>their constituents.
>
>Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>other party.
Oh, and another thing, at least sex isn't illegal, unlike tax evasion
which is actually criminal (Geithner, Rangle, et al)
Dems, Repubs... they're both scum. Dems and their organizations just
seem to be taking it to a new level lately.
William Wallace
<v...@dead.com> wrote:
> William Wallace wrote:
> > In article <o3uia51junm8tdoqp...@4ax.com>, GreenBlood
> > <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> ?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
> >>>> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
> >>> And you're not credible.
> >> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
> >>
> >> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
> >> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
> >> for five days.� = LIE
> >>
> >> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
> >>
> >>
> >> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
> >
> > You missed this one.
> >
> > "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
> > illegally," he said. = LIE
> >
> > The illegals who voted for him on his promise reform immigration are
> > already unhappy, as he is not moving fast enough for them on this
> > issue.
> >
> > http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1758092,CST-NWS-immig08.article
> >
>
> OMG you nut bird illegals cannot vote but I suppose that ignorance is
> bliss. You seem to be proud of being totally ignorant.
Do you prefer to live with blinders on? The National Voter Registration
Act of 1993, aka Motor-Voter law. Anyone can register to vote, no
citizenship verification required.
--
Free Lunch
wi.general:
>
I asked for specific language in the bill. You offered political
invective.
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> So I'm assuming you have no response to the actual subject at hand?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Listening to a liar? You must mean drippy sex, eye-patch panties
>>>> spanking, republican family values hypocrite Mike Duvall who was caught
>>>> blathering into a microphone that he thought was off about banging a
>>>> female Sempra Energy lobbyist. Duvall was of course on the energy
>>>> committee. After resigning, he now claims that he made the whole story
>>>> up & if his wife buys that rubbish I pity her. She should get tested for
>>>> HIV & STD's immediately.
>>
>>The republicans have been lying since day one concerning things like
>>pulling the plug on grandma, death panels, illegals, etc. yet these
>>republican hypocritical fear mongers have the audacity to call Obama a
>>liar. Excuse me while I barf.
>>
>>Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
>>drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
>>their constituents.
>
>At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
>organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the business of
>setting up kiddy whore houses.
It's amazing how completely unhinged the right has become. They will
tell any lie that anyone will listen to, repeatedly. They have no sense
of honor, no integrity. They have no shame.
...
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:12:59 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
Bills should be on the congressional websites and they should all be
read by everyone voting on them. There is no excuse for anyone in either
party to have repeatedly voted for bills that were not read by the
members.
vtc
> In article <MaidnXDJk6kNTTTX...@posted.widowmaker>, vtc
> <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>> William Wallace wrote:
>>> In article <o3uia51junm8tdoqp...@4ax.com>, GreenBlood
>>> <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:32:16 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ?baMa? Tse Dung <0bama0....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words
>>>>>> themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.
>>>>> And you're not credible.
>>>> "I'll ban all earmarks." = LIE
>>>>
>>>> "I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American
>>>> public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website
>>>>
>>>> "I will have no lobbyists in my administration." = LIE
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You see, it's kind of a pattern.
>>> You missed this one.
>>>
>>> "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here
>>> illegally," he said. = LIE
>>>
>>> The illegals who voted for him on his promise reform immigration are
>>> already unhappy, as he is not moving fast enough for them on this
>>> issue.
>>>
>>> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1758092,CST-NWS-immig08.article
>>>
>> OMG you nut bird illegals cannot vote but I suppose that ignorance is
>> bliss. You seem to be proud of being totally ignorant.
>
> Do you prefer to live with blinders on? The National Voter Registration
> Act of 1993, aka Motor-Voter law. Anyone can register to vote, no
> citizenship verification required.
>
> --
The republicans could have repealed this law when they controlled all
branches of government under Bush but they didn't so evidently they
didn't see it as a problem.
PC
That is because there is no such language in the bill.
panjandrum
news:100920092132499704%willw...@nowhere.com...
Illegals can't vote.
panjandrum
Nice illustration of vtc's point about Repugnicans being
nuts.
>
>>Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are
>>corrupt but
>>the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a
>>republican family
>>values party when their own indiscretions are seriously
>>out pacing any
>>other party.
>
>> The party of no when it
>>comes to helping average Americans.
>
> You mean like helping average Americans set up
> international underage
> sex trafficking houses?
Drink your kool-aid.
>
>> Experts at demolishing things like
>>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but disaster
>>in their wake.
>
> Like Carter did?
Carter didn't. Read a newspaper.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> Sure am.
In what way? What specifically do you favor?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:49:46 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
> >
> >> Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
> >
> >Putting aside that the clip is "mysteriously" cut off...
> >
>no, it's not.
Uh, yes, it is. It gets cut off once the statement is made, and the
statement is looped at that point.
> >He sez he's "going to", not "has".
> WHEN?
I give up, when? Did he say when?
> >> Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
> >> public view for 5 days?
> >
> >I'm not the one calling him a liar.
> No, I am.
So you'll have no problem proving your accusation.
> >So, which bills please?
> You don't follow along too well, do you?
Sure do, that's why I'm asking you to provide specific examples.
Look, if you don't have any fine, but repeating something doesn't make it
true.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
> >their constituents.
> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
> organizations like ACORN
Who's handing over billions to ACORN?
Please give us a citation.
> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
> >other party.
> > The party of no when it
> >comes to helping average Americans.
> You mean like helping average Americans set up international underage
> sex trafficking houses?
Is this going to be the same citation for the "billions" given to ACORN?
> > Experts at demolishing things like
> >the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but disaster in their wake.
> Like Carter did?
Carter through Reagan, yes, saw the worst of the hollowing out of US
industry.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >GreenBlood wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> So I'm assuming you have no response to the actual subject at hand?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Listening to a liar? You must mean drippy sex, eye-patch panties
> >>> spanking, republican family values hypocrite Mike Duvall who was caught
> >>> blathering into a microphone that he thought was off about banging a
> >>> female Sempra Energy lobbyist. Duvall was of course on the energy
> >>> committee. After resigning, he now claims that he made the whole story
> >>> up & if his wife buys that rubbish I pity her. She should get tested for
> >>> HIV & STD's immediately.
> >
> >The republicans have been lying since day one concerning things like
> >pulling the plug on grandma, death panels, illegals, etc. yet these
> >republican hypocritical fear mongers have the audacity to call Obama a
> >liar. Excuse me while I barf.
> >
> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
> >their constituents.
> >
> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
> >other party.
> Oh, and another thing, at least sex isn't illegal, unlike tax evasion
So you're saying politicians shouldn't run on moral values?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
"In addition to whatever other methods of voter registration which States
offer, the Act requires states to provide the opportunity to apply to
register to vote for federal elections by three means:
Section 5 of the Act requires states to provide individuals with the
opportunity to register to vote at the same time that they apply for a
driver's license or seek to renew a driver's license, and requires the
State to forward the completed application to the appropriate state of
local election official. Section 7 of the Act requires states to offer
voter registration opportunities at all offices that provide public
assistance and all offices that provide state-funded programs primarily
engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities. Each applicant
for any of these services, renewal of services, or address changes must be
provided with a voter registration form of a declination form as well as
assistance in completing the form and forwarding the completed application
to the appropriate state or local election official. Section 6 of the Act
provides that citizens can register to vote by mail using mail-in-forms
developed by each state and the Election Assistance Commission.
Section 8 of the Act also creates requirements for how States maintain
voter registration lists for federal elections. The Act deems as timely
those valid voter registration applications by eligible applicants
submitted to designated state and local officials, or postmarked if
submitted by mail, at least 30 days before a federal election. The Act
also requires notification of all applicants of whether their voter
registration applications were accepted or rejected. The Act requires
States to keep voter registration lists accurate and current, such as
identifying persons who have become ineligible due to having died or
moved outside the jurisdiction. At the same time, the Act requires list
maintenance programs to incorporate specific safeguards, e.g., that they
be uniform, non-discriminatory, in compliance with the Voting Rights Act,"
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/voting/nvra/activ_nvra.php
So, if you have knowledge of illegal immigrants voting, please produce, or
are you covering up for them? The NVRA does not allow illegal immigrants to
vote.
Mike
vtc
Precisely but the conservative crowd has gone off of the deep end of late.
Free Lunch
wrote in wi.general:
I would rather they show by their actions that they are ethical than
spew meaningless rhetoric about it to sucker unthinking religious sheep
into voting for them.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
>>public view for 5 days?
>
>Bills should be on the congressional websites and they should all be
>read by everyone voting on them. There is no excuse for anyone in either
>party to have repeatedly voted for bills that were not read by the
>members.
After all, that IS what they're paid to do... an idea that Arlen
Specter scoffs at.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:49:46 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
>> >
>> >> Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
>> >
>> >Putting aside that the clip is "mysteriously" cut off...
>> >
>>no, it's not.
>
>Uh, yes, it is. It gets cut off once the statement is made, and the
>statement is looped at that point.
>
>> >He sez he's "going to", not "has".
>
>> WHEN?
>
>I give up, when? Did he say when?
He's had plenty of opportunity.
>> >> Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
>> >> public view for 5 days?
>> >
>> >I'm not the one calling him a liar.
>
>> No, I am.
>
>So you'll have no problem proving your accusation.
Simple. He said he'd post bills for public viewing for FIVE DAYS
before he would sign one. So far, he hasn't done it with any of the
bills he has signed. What part of that is having trouble finding its
way into your frontal lobe?
>> >So, which bills please?
>
>> You don't follow along too well, do you?
>
>Sure do, that's why I'm asking you to provide specific examples.
So am I to understand that you're not aware of any bills he has
signed?
GreenBlood
wrote:
What do you favor?
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
>>organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the business of
>>setting up kiddy whore houses.
>
>It's amazing how completely unhinged the right has become. They will
>tell any lie that anyone will listen to, repeatedly. They have no sense
>of honor, no integrity. They have no shame.
What cave do you live in?
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars
>> over to
>> organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the
>> business of
>> setting up kiddy whore houses.
>
>Nice illustration of vtc's point about Repugnicans being
>nuts.
I'm no Republican. Republicans and Democrats are lemmings. Learn to
think for yourself.
>>> The party of no when it
>>>comes to helping average Americans.
>>
>> You mean like helping average Americans set up
>> international underage
>> sex trafficking houses?
>
>Drink your kool-aid.
Are you denying that ACORN has attempted to help anyone do this?
>>> Experts at demolishing things like
>>>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but disaster
>>>in their wake.
>>
>> Like Carter did?
>
>Carter didn't. Read a newspaper.
LOL Carter was such a fuckup that even Kennedy ran against his own
party's incumbent!
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
>> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
>> >their constituents.
>
>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
>> organizations like ACORN
>
>Who's handing over billions to ACORN?
It was a typo. supposed to be millions.
>> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>> >other party.
>
>> > The party of no when it
>> >comes to helping average Americans.
>
>> You mean like helping average Americans set up international underage
>> sex trafficking houses?
>
>Is this going to be the same citation for the "billions" given to ACORN?
So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
GreenBlood
>> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>> >other party.
>
>> Oh, and another thing, at least sex isn't illegal, unlike tax evasion
>
>So you're saying politicians shouldn't run on moral values?
No, they shouldn't. They should run on their ability to make
informed, repsonsible decisions reflective of their constituents and
be promptly removed from office if they engage in criminal activity.
What they do in their private lives within legal limits is their
business. What do I care if some senator cheats on his wife? He'll
pay his own consequences for that. Any credible allegations of
criminal activity should be investigated, not swept under the rug.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>So you're saying politicians shouldn't run on moral values?
>
>I would rather they show by their actions that they are ethical than
>spew meaningless rhetoric about it to sucker unthinking religious sheep
>into voting for them.
Is that any different from unthinking Democrats and Republicans who
claim to believe things just because their party tells them to?
Tell me, is there anything that Democrats push which you don't agree
with?
PC
When do they have time to read bills between all the campagining and fund
raising?
PC
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40:59 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
>
>>> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>>> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>>> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>>> >other party.
>>
>>> Oh, and another thing, at least sex isn't illegal, unlike tax evasion
>>
>>So you're saying politicians shouldn't run on moral values?
>
> No, they shouldn't. They should run on their ability to make
> informed, repsonsible decisions reflective of their constituents and
> be promptly removed from office if they engage in criminal activity.
> What they do in their private lives within legal limits is their
> business. What do I care if some senator cheats on his wife?
Did you care that Bill Clinton got a blowjob?
panjandrum
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:31:49 -0500, "panjandrum"
> <som...@ilwp4c.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer
>>> dollars
>>> over to
>>> organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the
>>> business of
>>> setting up kiddy whore houses.
>>
>>Nice illustration of vtc's point about Repugnicans being
>>nuts.
>
> I'm no Republican. Republicans and Democrats are
> lemmings. Learn to
> think for yourself.
You mean, like making sweeping generalities such as
"Republicans and Democrats are lemmings.?"
Is that "thinking for yourself?"
>
>>>> The party of no when it
>>>>comes to helping average Americans.
>>>
>>> You mean like helping average Americans set up
>>> international underage
>>> sex trafficking houses?
>>
>>Drink your kool-aid.
>
> Are you denying that ACORN has attempted to help anyone do
> this?
Not with gov't. money, and certainly not with billions.
>
>>>> Experts at demolishing things like
>>>>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but
>>>>disaster
>>>>in their wake.
>>>
>>> Like Carter did?
>>
>>Carter didn't. Read a newspaper.
>
> LOL Carter was such a fuckup that even Kennedy ran
> against his own
> party's incumbent!
Kennedy opposed Carter because Carter wasn't Liberal enough,
and because congress disliked his push for deregulation.
You really should get your news from somewhere other than
Rush Limbaugh.
As for inflation, you're conveniently forgetting that Nixon
and Ford unsuccessfully tried to check stagflation for eight
years before Carter inherited it.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:36:56 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:49:46 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue1I0O5l85E
> >> >
> >> >> Unconstitutional or not, it's still a lie.
> >> >
> >> >Putting aside that the clip is "mysteriously" cut off...
> >> >
> >>no, it's not.
> >
> >Uh, yes, it is. It gets cut off once the statement is made, and the
> >statement is looped at that point.
> >
> >> >He sez he's "going to", not "has".
> >
> >> WHEN?
> >
> >I give up, when? Did he say when?
> He's had plenty of opportunity.
Really? So, Congress has been in session all this time?
> >
> >> No, I am.
> >
> >So you'll have no problem proving your accusation.
> Simple. He said he'd post bills for public viewing for FIVE DAYS
> before he would sign one.
As has been pointed out, the bills are being posted.
> bills he has signed. What part of that is having trouble finding its
> way into your frontal lobe?
Hmm, the part where you agreed that the bills are being posted?
> >> >So, which bills please?
> >
> >> You don't follow along too well, do you?
> >
> >Sure do, that's why I'm asking you to provide specific examples.
> So am I to understand that you're not aware of any bills he has
So, please point them out
Again, if you can't, fine.
Mike
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:48:32 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
One that has people who can tell the difference between reality and
delusion.
If you really had evidence about this absurd accusation about ACORN you
could have provided it.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:34:23 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:50:17 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >Kind of like the previous administration. Pick your poison, McCain
> >> >> >wouldn't have done squat. His incompetence was proven when he chose
> >> >> >his running mate.
> >> >
> >> >> We're talking about Dear Leader Obama. The OP mentioned his
> >> >> credibility. How much credibility do you give to proven liars?
> >> >
> >> >You're not much of a libertarian, are you?
> >
> >> Sure am.
> >
> >In what way? What specifically do you favor?
> What do you favor?
So, you don't even know what you're for? Fine.
I'm for the usual; less government, less intervention in personal affairs,
no specific favoritism for businesses, no wars of discretion, strong
environmental stances, strong education, civil rights...
You know, the things that used to be conservative, before people like
Limbaugh "reinvented" conservatism.
Mike
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>wrote:
>
>>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
>>> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
>>> >their constituents.
>>
>>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
>>> organizations like ACORN
>>
>>Who's handing over billions to ACORN?
>
>It was a typo. supposed to be millions.
Now you call it a typo. Why didn't you admit your mistaken in your
answer to me? Instead you just accused me of not knowing what was going
on.
The federal government spends a huge amount of money through
not-for-profit social organizations. ACORN may be one of them. Catholic
Charities is one. Lutheran Social Services is one. Baptists and
Adventists and the Cancer Society are also folks who get federal money
to fulfill federal goals. You have no idea what ACORN does, but someone
told you it was a bad thing and you were stupid enough and lazy enough
to believe them.
>>> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
>>> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
>>> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
>>> >other party.
>>
>>> > The party of no when it
>>> >comes to helping average Americans.
>>
>>> You mean like helping average Americans set up international underage
>>> sex trafficking houses?
>>
>>Is this going to be the same citation for the "billions" given to ACORN?
>
>So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
Not as part of ACORN. That is not what they do. Only radical white
reactionaries would make such a silly claim.
Free Lunch
wi.general:
>
Only to the extent that it reminded us that he could be careless. Unlike
the holier-than-thou Republicans who seem to manage to get into the
headlines every month, Clinton didn't get himself elected by being
self-righteous about sex.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
> >> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
> >> >their constituents.
> >
> >> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
> >> organizations like ACORN
> >
> >Who's handing over billions to ACORN?
> It was a typo. supposed to be millions.
So, it's your claim that ACORN receives millions, yes?
In fact, they don't receive ANY money from the Fed.
Or was that another typo?
> >> >Now mind you many politicians of all political stripes are corrupt but
> >> >the republicans heralded themselves as the God is a republican family
> >> >values party when their own indiscretions are seriously out pacing any
> >> >other party.
> >
> >> > The party of no when it
> >> >comes to helping average Americans.
> >
> >> You mean like helping average Americans set up international underage
> >> sex trafficking houses?
> >
> >Is this going to be the same citation for the "billions" given to ACORN?
> So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
I'll believe it if you can show it. Otherwise, you're simply setting up
standard Republican strawmen.
Some members of ACORN have been accused of giving advice to people claiming
to be prostitutes.
Anyone with more than an elementary school education would see that this
is not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
trafficking houses".
Again, not that fed money goes to ACORN.
Mike
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:21:13 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
Sure, but at the moment I support the Democrats because Republicans were
so destructive over the past eight years. When the Republicans reform
themselves and start acting like human beings who care about what
happens to our country, I won't have any problem with them. Until they
do, I will support Democrats.
John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
had ever had. Apparently, four years of GWB was not enough to teach
Americans how truly dreadful he was. George gave us this recession, but
we bought it for ourselves by not throwing him out in 2004 when it was
very clear that he was lazy, ignorant, incompentent, and indifferent.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
So, they should not oppose, say, gay marriage, as that's a private
decision?
Mike
Free Lunch
wrote in wi.general:
Pretty much what Europeans call liberal.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:20:30 -0500, GreenBlood
> <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
> >On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:40:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >wrote:
> >
> >>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:39:03 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:40:43 -0400, vtc <v...@dead.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> >Duvall illustrates the point perfectly since republicans are having
> >>> >drippy sex with lobbyist they most certainly aren't looking out for
> >>> >their constituents.
> >>
> >>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer dollars over to
> >>> organizations like ACORN
> >>
> >>Who's handing over billions to ACORN?
> >
> >It was a typo. supposed to be millions.
> Now you call it a typo. Why didn't you admit your mistaken in your
> answer to me? Instead you just accused me of not knowing what was going
> on.
> The federal government spends a huge amount of money through
> not-for-profit social organizations. ACORN may be one of them. Catholic
It isn't.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:27:43 -0500, GreenBlood
> <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
> >On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:21:13 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>So you're saying politicians shouldn't run on moral values?
> >>
> >>I would rather they show by their actions that they are ethical than
> >>spew meaningless rhetoric about it to sucker unthinking religious sheep
> >>into voting for them.
> >
> >Is that any different from unthinking Democrats and Republicans who
> >claim to believe things just because their party tells them to?
> >
> >Tell me, is there anything that Democrats push which you don't agree
> >with?
> John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
> didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
> had ever had.
James Buchanan.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> Pretty much what Europeans call liberal.
Pretty much what "the Father of Modern Conservatism" stood for; Barry Goldwater.
Mike
Free Lunch
wrote in wi.general:
>Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
That shows you the strength of the competition that Bush beat out. Now I
agree that Buchanan's failures were a more serious catastrophe for the
United States than Bush's, but Buchanan was horrible because he was a
gutless wonder. Bush was actively stupid.
GreenBlood
No, but I did care that he committed perjury.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>Did you care that Bill Clinton got a blowjob?
>
>Only to the extent that it reminded us that he could be careless. Unlike
>the holier-than-thou Republicans who seem to manage to get into the
>headlines every month, Clinton didn't get himself elected by being
>self-righteous about sex.
Republicans and democrats BOTH manage to find their way into the
headlines on a regular basis. The difference is that the majority of
the media rarely report on democrats.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> No, they shouldn't. They should run on their ability to make
>> informed, repsonsible decisions reflective of their constituents and
>> be promptly removed from office if they engage in criminal activity.
>> What they do in their private lives within legal limits is their
>> business. What do I care if some senator cheats on his wife? He'll
>> pay his own consequences for that. Any credible allegations of
>> criminal activity should be investigated, not swept under the rug.
>
>So, they should not oppose, say, gay marriage, as that's a private
>decision?
No more than so than democrats should oppose law-abiding citizens'
rights to own whatever firearm they would like to purchase.
BOTH parties love to infringe on individual liberties. They just like
to infringe on different aspects of it.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
>didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
>had ever had.
Yeah, keeping terrorist attacks off our soil for 7 years... HOW DARE
HE!
>Apparently, four years of GWB was not enough to teach
>Americans how truly dreadful he was.
At least he didn't respond to the terrorism threat with a couple of
token Tomahawk missiles like Clinton did.
>George gave us this recession, but
Actually, recessions are a normal part of the economic cycle.
Presidents generally have very little to do with them.
>we bought it for ourselves by not throwing him out in 2004
It wouldn't have mattered. In case you have forgotten, we started
toward recession in Clinton's last year too.
Was he a great president? Not even close. But the timing was right.
He was tough when we needed tough. Imagine if Carter had been
president the last 8 years!
GreenBlood
>> >Tell me, is there anything that Democrats push which you don't agree
>> >with?
>
>> John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
>> didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
>> had ever had.
>
>James Buchanan.
U.S. Grant
Warren Harding
Jimmy Carter
Richard Nixon
Herbert Hoover
John Tyler
Andrew Johnson
All definately worse than GWB or WJC.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>> John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
>>> didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
>>> had ever had.
>>
>>James Buchanan.
>
>That shows you the strength of the competition that Bush beat out. Now I
>agree that Buchanan's failures were a more serious catastrophe for the
>United States than Bush's, but Buchanan was horrible because he was a
>gutless wonder. Bush was actively stupid.
So you're saying Buchanan turned a blind eye to the unabashed
proliferation of slavery, even though it was obvious that doing so
would put the country on a fast track to civil war, but he was smart
about it?
Sorry, but if you think GWB's fuckups compare to Buchanan's fuckups on
any level, you seriously need to study some history and get some
perspective.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>>>Is this going to be the same citation for the "billions" given to ACORN?
>>
>>So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
>
>Not as part of ACORN.
Oh, so even though they engaged in that very conduct in ACORN offices,
thats "not part of what they do."
>That is not what they do. Only radical white
>reactionaries would make such a silly claim.
They've been caught doing just that at least twice now. Sit up and
pay attention.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
>
>I'll believe it if you can show it.
4 ACORN employees have been fired in the last 2 days for doing just
that.
>Some members of ACORN have been accused of giving advice to people claiming
>to be prostitutes.
>
>Anyone with more than an elementary school education would see that this
>is not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
>trafficking houses".
They certainly advised on how to get away with it, showing absolutely
no concern for potential 13-15 year old girls being pushed into it.
The fact that the "prostitute" and "pimp" were actors is irrelevant to
their intent to aid criminal activities.
>Again, not that fed money goes to ACORN.
You just keep your head in the sand for now. No skin off my back.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>"GreenBlood" <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in message
>news:1b8la5pkivn2i2u34...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:31:49 -0500, "panjandrum"
>> <som...@ilwp4c.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer
>>>> dollars
>>>> over to
>>>> organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the
>>>> business of
>>>> setting up kiddy whore houses.
>>>
>>>Nice illustration of vtc's point about Repugnicans being
>>>nuts.
>>
>> I'm no Republican. Republicans and Democrats are
>> lemmings. Learn to
>> think for yourself.
>
>You mean, like making sweeping generalities such as
>"Republicans and Democrats are lemmings.?"
>
>Is that "thinking for yourself?"
Yes, because that's my personal opinion. Came up with it all by my
lonesome. See how that works?
>>>>> The party of no when it
>>>>>comes to helping average Americans.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like helping average Americans set up
>>>> international underage
>>>> sex trafficking houses?
>>>
>>>Drink your kool-aid.
>>
>> Are you denying that ACORN has attempted to help anyone do
>> this?
>
>Not with gov't. money, and certainly not with billions.
But you DO acknowledge that they have been caught promoting criminal
behavior, regardless of where you think they get their money.
>>>>> Experts at demolishing things like
>>>>>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but
>>>>>disaster
>>>>>in their wake.
>>>>
>>>> Like Carter did?
>>>
>>>Carter didn't. Read a newspaper.
>>
>> LOL Carter was such a fuckup that even Kennedy ran
>> against his own
>> party's incumbent!
>
>Kennedy opposed Carter because Carter wasn't Liberal enough,
>and because congress disliked his push for deregulation.
>You really should get your news from somewhere other than
>Rush Limbaugh.
Why do libs assume that anyone who doesn't see the world through their
narrow scope must somehow be fans of Rush Limbaugh?
Really... turn off Keith Olberman and start looking for BOTH sides of
the issues. Only then can you make a truly informed opinion. The
truth is always somewhere between.
For instance, when I want to know what kind of crap the Republicans
are up to, I tune in to CNN, MSNBC, Chris Mathews, and the NY Times.
When I want some info on the kind of crap Democrats are up to, I tune
in to Foxnews, Bill O'Reilly, the NY Post and Washington Times.
I would advise avoiding the loonies on either end of the spectrum,
like Olbermann, Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, etc.
I highly recommend "Loonies to the Left of Me, Wimps to the Right" by
Bernie Goldberg. It's got a lot of humor in it as well as some good
insights as to how fucked up both ends of the spectrum are.
>As for inflation, you're conveniently forgetting that Nixon
>and Ford unsuccessfully tried to check stagflation for eight
>years before Carter inherited it.
Just wait until you see the inflation that kicks in over the next few
years. It's already started, if you pay any attention to your grocery
bill.
GreenBlood
wrote:
So you admit that you don't believe that Obama has signed a single
bill into law.
Here, since you're too inept to find common knowledge:
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
He didn't post it for ONE SECOND on the WH website for public view,
let alone for 5 days. That alone makes him a liar. You can throw in
all the other bills he has signed too.
Damn you're dense.
GreenBlood
>> >In what way? What specifically do you favor?
>
>> What do you favor?
>
>So, you don't even know what you're for? Fine.
>
>I'm for the usual; less government,
Wonderful! So you're against the massive expansion Obama is bringing
to the Executive Branch, correct?
> less intervention in personal affairs,
Great! So we agree that the government shouldn't have any say on why
or when we see a physician for any reason we see fit.
>no specific favoritism for businesses,
So you oppose Cap and Trade, which would be a huge boon to companies
like GE? How did you feel about the favoritism shown to General
Motors?
>no wars of discretion,
Yet self-defense is the right of any nation, correct?
>strong
>environmental stances,
Preceeded by thorough debate, sure.
>strong education, civil rights...
I would add that responsible citizens should be allowed to own
whatever gun they want, and that while I personally find abortion
revolting, like most folks in the middle of the country, I consider a
woman's decision to end her unborn child's life to be between her and
her conscience. If she finds that she ends up with deep remorse for
her actions, that's on her. If not, fine.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> >You know, the things that used to be conservative, before people like
>> >Limbaugh "reinvented" conservatism.
>
>> Pretty much what Europeans call liberal.
>
>Pretty much what "the Father of Modern Conservatism" stood for; Barry Goldwater.
Goldwater had a very good book about what conservatism should stand
for.
Can't remember the name off-hand.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:22:49 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> No, they shouldn't. They should run on their ability to make
> >> informed, repsonsible decisions reflective of their constituents and
> >> be promptly removed from office if they engage in criminal activity.
> >> What they do in their private lives within legal limits is their
> >> business. What do I care if some senator cheats on his wife? He'll
> >> pay his own consequences for that. Any credible allegations of
> >> criminal activity should be investigated, not swept under the rug.
> >
> >So, they should not oppose, say, gay marriage, as that's a private
> >decision?
> No more than so than democrats should oppose law-abiding citizens'
> rights to own whatever firearm they would like to purchase.
Hmm, don't recall saying anything about Republicans in there; you seem
to be a Republican. Perhaps you are unaware that "the Father of Modern
Conservatism" was the first prominent politician to come out for various
gay rights.
But on to your misdirection...
So, Biden opposes firearms ownership?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:22:00 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> wrote:
> >John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
> >didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
> >had ever had.
> Yeah, keeping terrorist attacks off our soil for 7 years... HOW DARE
> HE!
Lost more Americans than any attack by a foreign power on US soil
since the War of 1812, and you're LAUDING that????
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:14:54 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> >Tell me, is there anything that Democrats push which you don't agree
> >> >with?
> >
> >> John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
> >> didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
> >> had ever had.
> >
> >James Buchanan.
> U.S. Grant
No.
> Warren Harding
Close, but no.
> Jimmy Carter
No. I thought he was the worst in my lifetime until Bush.
> Richard Nixon
Not really.
> Herbert Hoover
No, more of a Carter type.
> John Tyler
No.
> Andrew Johnson
An odd choice.
> All definately worse than GWB or WJC.
Clinton was about average. A cut below Bush Sr.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:21:45 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
> >
> >I'll believe it if you can show it.
> 4 ACORN employees have been fired in the last 2 days for doing just
> that.
No, they were fired when some people posing as prostitutes, etc., came
to them for advice.
They were not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
trafficking houses"
Again, these are YOUR statements. If you can't stand by them, have someone
check them out before you post them.
> >Anyone with more than an elementary school education would see that this
> >is not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
> >trafficking houses".
> They certainly advised on how to get away with it, showing absolutely
> no concern for potential 13-15 year old girls being pushed into it.
Again, we can only address the statements you make, not those you wished
to have made.
> The fact that the "prostitute" and "pimp" were actors is irrelevant to
> their intent to aid criminal activities.
But none of that was your contention; your contention was a ridiculous
statement that they were somehow doing this for "average Americans".
> >Again, not that fed money goes to ACORN.
> You just keep your head in the sand for now. No skin off my back.
You keep yours up your rear, it seems.
Again, ACORN does not get federal money. Perhaps you should look things up.
Do you need a citation?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:06 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> >> You don't follow along too well, do you?
> >> >
> >> >Sure do, that's why I'm asking you to provide specific examples.
> >
> >> So am I to understand that you're not aware of any bills he has
> >
> >So, please point them out
> >
> >Again, if you can't, fine.
> So you admit that you don't believe that Obama has signed a single
> bill into law.
Uh, no, I asked you to show examples of Bills not being posted for
5 days.
Perhaps you should follow your own posts.
> Here, since you're too inept to find common knowledge:
If you simply post things when asked, instead of hand waving for 10
posts, we might take your criticism more seriously. As you don't, well,
you seem more petulant than anything else.
> American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Various versions of that were posted on the 'Net prior to its signing
in February.
> He didn't post it for ONE SECOND on the WH website for public view,
> let alone for 5 days. That alone makes him a liar. You can throw in
> all the other bills he has signed too.
> Damn you're dense.
No, you're simply simple-minded.
How much money does ACORN get from the Federal government?
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >> >In what way? What specifically do you favor?
> >
> >> What do you favor?
> >
> >So, you don't even know what you're for? Fine.
> >
> >I'm for the usual; less government,
> Wonderful! So you're against the massive expansion Obama is bringing
> to the Executive Branch, correct?
Which massive expansion? I don't yet see a new Cabinet position.
> > less intervention in personal affairs,
> Great! So we agree that the government shouldn't have any say on why
> or when we see a physician for any reason we see fit.
Which intervention is this?
You've been asked, but you always dodge it.
Which intervention are you wetting your pants about?
> >no specific favoritism for businesses,
> So you oppose Cap and Trade,
Mostly.
> which would be a huge boon to companies like GE?
Actually, no. For the most part, simply reducing various pollutants is
better in the long run for the companies, and this is hardly a "boon".
> How did you feel about the favoritism shown to General
> Motors?
One of the things I disliked about Bush; but that's a bailout, not
favoritism.
> >no wars of discretion,
> Yet self-defense is the right of any nation, correct?
When did Iraq attack us?
Or are you going to back out of this as well?
> >strong environmental stances,
> Preceeded by thorough debate, sure.
Sorry? Have you noticed a lack of debate on these things over the past
decade?
> >strong education, civil rights...
> I would add that responsible citizens should be allowed to own
> whatever gun they want,
I wonder why the first panic button is always the 2nd (and no, I don't see
any reason private citizens should have automatic weapons) and not the
1st Amendment...
> and that while I personally find abortion
> revolting, like most folks in the middle of the country, I consider a
I don't agree that it's a "civil right"; it's simply the law. I was
referring more to "equal treatment for all".
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
And if anyone actually espouses his positions, they're immediately labelled
"liberal".
Mike
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>> >> >In what way? What specifically do you favor?
>> >
>> >> What do you favor?
>> >
>> >So, you don't even know what you're for? Fine.
>> >
>> >I'm for the usual; less government,
>
>> Wonderful! So you're against the massive expansion Obama is bringing
>> to the Executive Branch, correct?
>
>Which massive expansion? I don't yet see a new Cabinet position.
>
>> > less intervention in personal affairs,
>
>> Great! So we agree that the government shouldn't have any say on why
>> or when we see a physician for any reason we see fit.
>
>Which intervention is this?
>
>You've been asked, but you always dodge it.
>
>Which intervention are you wetting your pants about?
The same government rationing present in the Euro model, which is
where the dems eventually want to end up.
>> >no specific favoritism for businesses,
>
>> So you oppose Cap and Trade,
>
>Mostly.
>
>> which would be a huge boon to companies like GE?
>
>Actually, no. For the most part, simply reducing various pollutants is
>better in the long run for the companies, and this is hardly a "boon".
>
>> How did you feel about the favoritism shown to General
>> Motors?
>
>One of the things I disliked about Bush; but that's a bailout, not
>favoritism.
And it shouldn't have occurred. Bad businesses should be allowed to
fail. Better ones spring up in their wake.
>> >no wars of discretion,
>
>> Yet self-defense is the right of any nation, correct?
>
>When did Iraq attack us?
They didn't. But their leader helped fund those who did. He had to
be removed.
>Or are you going to back out of this as well?
>
>> >strong environmental stances,
>
>> Preceeded by thorough debate, sure.
>
>Sorry? Have you noticed a lack of debate on these things over the past
>decade?
I haven't seen anything resembling a consensus. I assume you're a
global warming acolyte?
>> >strong education, civil rights...
>
>> I would add that responsible citizens should be allowed to own
>> whatever gun they want,
>
>I wonder why the first panic button is always the 2nd (and no, I don't see
>any reason private citizens should have automatic weapons)
I thought you said you were against gov intervention into personal
affairs.
If a law abiding citizen wants to own an automatic weapon, for his own
enjoyment at the target range, how is that anyone's business? I
didn't say violent criminals should be allowed to own them. But you
know what? Banned or not, criminals are going to get them anyway if
they want them.
>and not the
>1st Amendment...
Say what you want. I don't care. Likewise, I'll say what I want.
GreenBlood
wrote:
Oh, I see. So are you a "truther?"
By the way, the people who rammed those buildings obtained student
visas and enrolled in pilot training on Clinton's watch. But I don't
blame him either. NOBODY could have seen that coming. Of course,
Clinton never did take the threat serioiusly, even after the SS Cole.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:21:45 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>> >> So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
>> >
>> >I'll believe it if you can show it.
>
>> 4 ACORN employees have been fired in the last 2 days for doing just
>> that.
>
>No, they were fired when some people posing as prostitutes, etc., came
>to them for advice.
>
>They were not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
>trafficking houses"
Semantics. The way they were explaining to them how to get away with
it all is no less deplorable.
>> >Anyone with more than an elementary school education would see that this
>> >is not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
>> >trafficking houses".
>
>> They certainly advised on how to get away with it, showing absolutely
>> no concern for potential 13-15 year old girls being pushed into it.
>
>Again, we can only address the statements you make, not those you wished
>to have made.
So you deny that they were helpful with someone professing to want to
set up an underage prostitution ring?
>> The fact that the "prostitute" and "pimp" were actors is irrelevant to
>> their intent to aid criminal activities.
>
>But none of that was your contention; your contention was a ridiculous
>statement that they were somehow doing this for "average Americans".
Oh, I see. So what they did was okay, since they thought they were
advising a couple of professional in the field of prostitution.
>> >Again, not that fed money goes to ACORN.
>
>> You just keep your head in the sand for now. No skin off my back.
>
>You keep yours up your rear, it seems.
At least I don't have Obama's cock up mine. Funny, you profess to
believe certain things, but then blindly support every whim of a man
who flies in the face of everything you say to believe in.
>Again, ACORN does not get federal money. Perhaps you should look things up.
>
>Do you need a citation?
Sure. Go ahead. Try to avoid sources such as "Huffington Post." And
don't ask me to take THEIR word for it.
GreenBlood
>
>"GreenBlood" <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in message
>news:u07la5lih62in7tmh...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:49:49 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>Can you name a single bill that he HAS put on the WH website for
>>>>public view for 5 days?
>>>
>>>Bills should be on the congressional websites and they should all be
>>>read by everyone voting on them. There is no excuse for anyone in either
>>>party to have repeatedly voted for bills that were not read by the
>>>members.
>>
>> After all, that IS what they're paid to do... an idea that Arlen
>> Specter scoffs at.
>
>When do they have time to read bills between all the campagining and fund
>raising?
True. We wouldn't want them to be inconvenienced or anything.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:10:06 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>> wrote:
>
>> >> >> You don't follow along too well, do you?
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure do, that's why I'm asking you to provide specific examples.
>> >
>> >> So am I to understand that you're not aware of any bills he has
>> >
>> >So, please point them out
>> >
>> >Again, if you can't, fine.
>
>> So you admit that you don't believe that Obama has signed a single
>> bill into law.
>
>Uh, no, I asked you to show examples of Bills not being posted for
>5 days.
>
>Perhaps you should follow your own posts.
>
>> Here, since you're too inept to find common knowledge:
>
>If you simply post things when asked, instead of hand waving for 10
>posts, we might take your criticism more seriously. As you don't, well,
>you seem more petulant than anything else.
>
>> American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
>
>Various versions of that were posted on the 'Net prior to its signing
>in February.
Not the version he SIGNED, and never on the WH website, like he
promised. It wasn't even distributed to Congress until a few hours
before it was voted on! Obama signed it the next day.
>> He didn't post it for ONE SECOND on the WH website for public view,
>> let alone for 5 days. That alone makes him a liar. You can throw in
>> all the other bills he has signed too.
>
>> Damn you're dense.
>
>No, you're simply simple-minded.
>
>How much money does ACORN get from the Federal government?
They're set to receive billions this year according the bill mentioned
above.
GreenBlood
wrote:
>> Andrew Johnson
>
>An odd choice.
Johnson stood against nearly every single reform Congress passed
following the civil war, including the 14th Amendment. Congress had
to have regular override votes to get anything done.
PC
He was acquitted of such charges so you can rest easy.
PC
Quite the opposite. He wanted to take out bin Laden and he advised the Bush
administration on the way out that Al-Queda was their #1 concern. They
ignored him.
You sure have the most convenient revisionist history.
PC
> For instance, when I want to know what kind of crap the Republicans
> are up to, I tune in to CNN, MSNBC, Chris Mathews, and the NY Times.
>
There you will find (especially with Olbermann) mole-hills pumped up to be
mountains.
> When I want some info on the kind of crap Democrats are up to, I tune
> in to Foxnews, Bill O'Reilly, the NY Post and Washington Times.
>
There you will find outright lies.
PC
>
> Yet self-defense is the right of any nation, correct?
>
Since when is attacking a country that didn't attack you self defense? You
have got to be joking.
Free Lunch
wrote in wi.general:
Would the Republican Party have let Barry Goldwater run for anything in
the past decade? I doubt it. He didn't kowtow to the religious zealots.
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:56:13 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
>wrote:
>
>>GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:22:00 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> >John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
>>> >didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
>>> >had ever had.
>>
>>> Yeah, keeping terrorist attacks off our soil for 7 years... HOW DARE
>>> HE!
>>
>>Lost more Americans than any attack by a foreign power on US soil
>>since the War of 1812, and you're LAUDING that????
>
>Oh, I see. So are you a "truther?"
One needn't be a truther to consider the possibility that these attacks
showed a shocking carelessness about security. Given what Bush was being
warned about, he failed.
>By the way, the people who rammed those buildings obtained student
>visas and enrolled in pilot training on Clinton's watch. But I don't
>blame him either. NOBODY could have seen that coming. Of course,
>Clinton never did take the threat serioiusly, even after the SS Cole.
Where did that claim come from? It doesn't seem to square with
everything else I have read about this after the first WTC bombing.
Free Lunch
<gree...@packersrule.com> wrote in wi.general:
>On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:12:12 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
Show me the details.
panjandrum
He did nothing of the kind.
>
>>Or are you going to back out of this as well?
>>
>>> >strong environmental stances,
>>
>>> Preceeded by thorough debate, sure.
>>
>>Sorry? Have you noticed a lack of debate on these things
>>over the past
>>decade?
>
> I haven't seen anything resembling a consensus. I assume
> you're a
> global warming acolyte?
Purposively vague.
There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on global
warming.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:20:36 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:13:00 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >Which massive expansion? I don't yet see a new Cabinet position.
> >
> >> > less intervention in personal affairs,
> >
> >> Great! So we agree that the government shouldn't have any say on why
> >> or when we see a physician for any reason we see fit.
> >
> >Which intervention is this?
> >
> >You've been asked, but you always dodge it.
> >
> >Which intervention are you wetting your pants about?
> The same government rationing present in the Euro model, which is
> where the dems eventually want to end up.
Sorry, but your fears of something that might possibly be in the future
are not the same as a real fear.
Or are you agreeing that there is no government plan now for the government
to say why or when people see a physician?
> >> which would be a huge boon to companies like GE?
> >
> >Actually, no. For the most part, simply reducing various pollutants is
> >better in the long run for the companies, and this is hardly a "boon".
> >
> >> How did you feel about the favoritism shown to General
> >> Motors?
> >
> >One of the things I disliked about Bush; but that's a bailout, not
> >favoritism.
> And it shouldn't have occurred. Bad businesses should be allowed to
> fail.
It has; the bailout is to secure the future of the employees and their
benefits. The company itself is going through bankruptcy, the leadership
wil be gone.
> Better ones spring up in their wake.
No, not at all. That is a myth. In fact, the hollowing out of the US
industrial economy is because, in part, once such a company fails, foreign
competition replaces it immediately, making it nearly impossible for a
domestic company to gain traction.
> >> >no wars of discretion,
> >
> >> Yet self-defense is the right of any nation, correct?
> >
> >When did Iraq attack us?
> They didn't.
Thank you. A discretionary war. BTW, this is in violation of the Geneva
Conventions, and technically a war crime.
> But their leader helped fund those who did.
Sorry, he did not, and that was a very public admission on the part of the
Bush administration not too long ago.
You are basing your belief on a blind trust in a publically discreditted
ruse.
> He had to be removed.
He posed no threat, and was removed at huge cost to the US economy and
world standing.
Utter nonsense, and it's amazing that anyone calling themselves conservative,
much less "libertarian" continues to defend that nonsense.
> >> >strong environmental stances,
> >
> >> Preceeded by thorough debate, sure.
> >
> >Sorry? Have you noticed a lack of debate on these things over the past
> >decade?
> I haven't seen anything resembling a consensus.
Then you don't follow scientific literture.
> I assume you're a global warming acolyte?
Since the Artic is seeing the first Northwest Passage in millenia, and
Antartica is seeing a net ice loss, there's not really much doubt, save
among Republican "activists" and discreditted businessmen, such as GM's
form CEO.
> >> >strong education, civil rights...
> >
> >> I would add that responsible citizens should be allowed to own
> >> whatever gun they want,
> >
> >I wonder why the first panic button is always the 2nd (and no, I don't see
> >any reason private citizens should have automatic weapons)
> I thought you said you were against gov intervention into personal
> affairs.
Sorry, how is it an intervention to prevent you from keeping a fully
automatic weapon?
> If a law abiding citizen wants to own an automatic weapon, for his own
> enjoyment at the target range, how is that anyone's business? I
Or a nuclear weapon, just for show, yes?
> didn't say violent criminals should be allowed to own them. But you
> know what? Banned or not, criminals are going to get them anyway if
> they want them.
Nope. The stronger the gun control laws are in developed nations, the lower
the rate of criminal gun violence in general.
> >and not the
> >1st Amendment...
> Say what you want. I don't care. Likewise, I'll say what I want.
Right; after all, that despots always first seize control of the press
and ignore armed citizenry is nothing to a person concerned about the
dangers of government.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:56:13 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:22:00 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >John Kerry was the first Democrat I voted for for the presidency. I
> >> >didn't vote for him so much as I voted against the worst president we
> >> >had ever had.
> >
> >> Yeah, keeping terrorist attacks off our soil for 7 years... HOW DARE
> >> HE!
> >
> >Lost more Americans than any attack by a foreign power on US soil
> >since the War of 1812, and you're LAUDING that????
> Oh, I see. So are you a "truther?"
Oh, I see; so you are an idiot.
The fact is that Bush failed to prevent the single worst attack on US
soil in nearly 200 years, and somehow you put this in his "credit"
column.
Mike
panjandrum
> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 15:40:06 -0500, "panjandrum"
> <som...@ilwp4c.com>>>news:1b8la5pkivn2i2u34...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 09:31:49 -0500, "panjandrum"
>>> <som...@ilwp4c.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> At least they're not handing billions of taxpayer
>>>>> dollars
>>>>> over to
>>>>> organizations like ACORN which are apparently in the
>>>>> business of
>>>>> setting up kiddy whore houses.
>>>>
>>>>Nice illustration of vtc's point about Repugnicans being
>>>>nuts.
>>>
>>> I'm no Republican. Republicans and Democrats are
>>> lemmings. Learn to
>>> think for yourself.
>>
>>You mean, like making sweeping generalities such as
>>"Republicans and Democrats are lemmings.?"
>>
>>Is that "thinking for yourself?"
>
> Yes, because that's my personal opinion. Came up with it
> all by my
> lonesome. See how that works?
Every rightie I've seen says exactly the same thing.
Making an absurd generality may pass for thinking in some
circles, but I call it knee-jerk.
>
>>>>>> The party of no when it
>>>>>>comes to helping average Americans.
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean like helping average Americans set up
>>>>> international underage
>>>>> sex trafficking houses?
>>>>
>>>>Drink your kool-aid.
>>>
>>> Are you denying that ACORN has attempted to help anyone
>>> do
>>> this?
>>
>>Not with gov't. money, and certainly not with billions.
>
> But you DO acknowledge that they have been caught
> promoting criminal
> behavior, regardless of where you think they get their
> money.
I don't know anything about that.
>
>>>>>> Experts at demolishing things like
>>>>>>the economy & infrastructure leaving nothing but
>>>>>>disaster
>>>>>>in their wake.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like Carter did?
>>>>
>>>>Carter didn't. Read a newspaper.
>>>
>>> LOL Carter was such a fuckup that even Kennedy ran
>>> against his own
>>> party's incumbent!
>>
>>Kennedy opposed Carter because Carter wasn't Liberal
>>enough,
>>and because congress disliked his push for deregulation.
>>You really should get your news from somewhere other than
>>Rush Limbaugh.
>
> Why do libs assume that anyone who doesn't see the world
> through their
> narrow scope must somehow be fans of Rush Limbaugh?
>
> Really... turn off Keith Olberman and start looking for
> BOTH sides of
> the issues. Only then can you make a truly informed
> opinion. The
> truth is always somewhere between.
>
> For instance, when I want to know what kind of crap the
> Republicans
> are up to, I tune in to CNN, MSNBC, Chris Mathews, and the
> NY Times.
>
> When I want some info on the kind of crap Democrats are up
> to, I tune
> in to Foxnews, Bill O'Reilly, the NY Post and Washington
> Times.
I rest my case.
>
> I would advise avoiding the loonies on either end of the
> spectrum,
> like Olbermann, Hannity, Limbaugh, Maddow, etc.
>
> I highly recommend "Loonies to the Left of Me, Wimps to
> the Right" by
> Bernie Goldberg. It's got a lot of humor in it as well as
> some good
> insights as to how fucked up both ends of the spectrum
> are.
I don't watch television; I read three newspapers every day.
>
>>As for inflation, you're conveniently forgetting that
>>Nixon
>>and Ford unsuccessfully tried to check stagflation for
>>eight
>>years before Carter inherited it.
>
> Just wait until you see the inflation that kicks in over
> the next few
> years. It's already started, if you pay any attention to
> your grocery
> bill.
My food bills are roughly 10% down, particularly on goodies
like scallops and red snapper.
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:04:55 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >GreenBlood <gree...@packersrule.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 22:21:45 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> >> So you're saying nobody in ACORN has attempted to do this?
> >> >
> >> >I'll believe it if you can show it.
> >
> >> 4 ACORN employees have been fired in the last 2 days for doing just
> >> that.
> >
> >No, they were fired when some people posing as prostitutes, etc., came
> >to them for advice.
> >
> >They were not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
> >trafficking houses"
> Semantics.
No, no more than "ACORN gets billions, no wait, millions, no, wait, some
money that I can't show" is "semantics".
You either mean what you write, or you don't.
> >> >Anyone with more than an elementary school education would see that this
> >> >is not "helping average Americans set up international underage sex
> >> >trafficking houses".
> >
> >> They certainly advised on how to get away with it, showing absolutely
> >> no concern for potential 13-15 year old girls being pushed into it.
> >
> >Again, we can only address the statements you make, not those you wished
> >to have made.
> So you deny that they were helpful with someone professing to want to
Again, we can only address statements you made, not statements you should
have taken the time to make, but felt no need for accuracy.
Your statement was that ACORN helps "average Americans" to do this.
Do you withdraw it, or do you continue to promote it?
> >> The fact that the "prostitute" and "pimp" were actors is irrelevant to
> >> their intent to aid criminal activities.
> >But none of that was your contention; your contention was a ridiculous
> >statement that they were somehow doing this for "average Americans".
> Oh, I see.
No, you can't; you made one statement, it was shown to be wrong, and now
you're attempting to address a different issue without first admitting you
were wrong.
> >> >Again, not that fed money goes to ACORN.
> >
> >> You just keep your head in the sand for now. No skin off my back.
> >
> >You keep yours up your rear, it seems.
> At least I don't have Obama's cock up mine.
Bush's still your favorite, no doubt.
Funny, you profess to
> believe certain things, but then blindly support every whim of a man
> who flies in the face of everything you say to believe in.
Really? He is against environmental issues? He's proposing the US
set up Constitutional amendments to regulate private decisions?
He's trying to start a foreign war? He's trying to decrease funding
for education?
> >Again, ACORN does not get federal money. Perhaps you should look things up.
> >
> >Do you need a citation?
> Sure. Go ahead.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200810010019?f=s_search
"Media figures have recently accused Democrats of attempting to direct
millions of dollars in government money to the Association of Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the financial bailout bill. The
accusation is false. Neither the draft proposal nor the version of the
bill that was voted down in the House contained any language mentioning
ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision --
since removed -- that would have directed 20 percent of any profits
realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into the Housing
Trust Fund* and the Capital Magnet Fund."
Now, your turn; give us a citation showing ACORN gets billions, or millions,
or whatever the "type-du-jour" is.
Mike
mtfe...@netmapsonscape.net
> On Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:12:12 +0000 (UTC), mtfe...@netMAPSONscape.net
> wrote:
> >Various versions of that were posted on the 'Net prior to its signing
> >in February.
> Not the version he SIGNED, and never on the WH website, like he
Sorry, the bill versions were posted on various sites since near the
end of the Bush administration.
> >
> >No, you're simply simple-minded.
> >
> >How much money does ACORN get from the Federal government?
> They're set to receive billions this year according the bill mentioned
> above.
Sorry, but simply parroting the Republican Party line doesn't make it so.
Again
"SUMMARY: Media figures have recently accused Democrats of attempting
to direct millions of dollars in government money to the Association of
Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the financial bailout
bill. The accusation is false. Neither the draft proposal nor the version
of the bill that was voted down in the House contained any language
mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a
provision -- since removed -- that would have directed 20 percent of
any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into
the Housing Trust Fund* and the Capital Magnet Fund."
Mike