Re: Lucy FACTOID 101

[RichTravsky]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > We share world views and points of view. We hate socialism.
>
> What government programs do you consider to be "socialism"?

Any that he doesn't personally benefit from.

[Jason]

In article <4F5ECE52...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak, Medicaid.

[David Fritzinger]

In article <Jason-12031...@66-53-223-22.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Examples: Medicare and Social Security. Of course, those programs aren;t
really socialistic. YOu would know that if you knew what socialism is.
But, as you have demonstrated many times in the past, you don't have any
idea of what socialism is.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1203122327260001@66-53-223-
22.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Border Patrol, INS, CDC, EPA, West Point, FAA,
NTSA, NASA, VA hospitals.

All "socialism", you say?

[ala]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA018D28E3925...@216.196.121.131...

> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1203122327260001@66-53-223-
> 22.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>

>> Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak, Medicaid.
>
>
> Border Patrol, INS, CDC, EPA, West Point, FAA,
> NTSA, NASA, VA hospitals.
>
> All "socialism", you say?

The Army. Navy, Air Force and Marines!
>
>
>
>
>

[Jason]

In article <XnsA018D28E3925...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

Most every major program that is ran by the federal and state governments.
There may be some exceptions. For example, I have read that some gov't
agencies use private contractors to do some of the work that needs to be
done. It's my opinion that the private companies that pay those private
contractors are NOT socialist organizations.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-16031...@66-53-208-215.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Oh, you mean like the ACA, where *insurance companies* provide the
actual insurance payments to *doctors* (many of whom are LLCs, or
limited liability companies)?

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:48:14 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

No, they are fascist.

[ala]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:ou09m7h5k2qitkutk...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 23:48:14 -0800, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>

>>

>>Most every major program that is ran by the federal and state governments.
>>There may be some exceptions. For example, I have read that some gov't
>>agencies use private contractors to do some of the work that needs to be
>>done. It's my opinion that the private companies that pay those private
>>contractors are NOT socialist organizations.
>>
> No, they are fascist.

every single person in the US owes their livelihood to governments federal
and local.

pretending that the corporation that built the road wasn't funded by the
government is pure idiocy.

you could never get to your job never mind to food shopping if not for the
socialism the government allows you to participate in.

get over yourself Jason.
meet the real oz

t

[James Burns]

ala wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XnsA018D28E3925...@216.196.121.131...
>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

>> news:Jason-12031...@66-53-223-22.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:

>>> Any program controlled by the government
>>> --examples Amtrak, Medicaid.
>>
>> Border Patrol, INS, CDC, EPA, West Point, FAA,
>> NTSA, NASA, VA hospitals.
>>
>> All "socialism", you say?
>
> The Army. Navy, Air Force and Marines!

And the Interstate Highway system, if only the Federal government
is able make something socialist by its taint.

If it's just government itself (which makes more sense
-- what would make the Feds so special?), then include
all the rest of the roads, excepting a few driveways
and parking lots. Plus all police, firefighters,
pretty much anything a government wants to do that is
more than loud calls for something to be done.

So, every government everywhere that actually does anything
is "socialist". Which is every government everywhere.

Give up, Jason. The "socialists" have won. It's over.

[Jason]

Most federal and state agencies--not private contractors that work for the
government agencies.

[ala]

"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-18031...@66-53-208-98.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

I have often wondered why the conservative (as eg Ron Paul) line that let
the state make the decision not the feds is ok and not socialism.. Never
made any sense

pretending contract services purchased by the government isn't a government
run service is putting blinders on
>

[ala]

"James Burns" <burn...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:4F64E11A...@osu.edu...

> ala wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XnsA018D28E3925...@216.196.121.131...
>>> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>>> news:Jason-12031...@66-53-223-22.stkn.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>
>>>> Any program controlled by the government
>>>> --examples Amtrak, Medicaid.
>>>
>>> Border Patrol, INS, CDC, EPA, West Point, FAA,
>>> NTSA, NASA, VA hospitals.
>>>
>>> All "socialism", you say?
>>
>> The Army. Navy, Air Force and Marines!
>
> And the Interstate Highway system, if only the Federal government
> is able make something socialist by its taint.

the interstate highway is more than just tainted federally
Eisenhower championed it and construction was authorized by the Federal-Aid
Highway Act of 1956

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

[RichTravsky]

"I am in favor of Social Security and Medicare" - Jason

[Jason]

In article <4F662B7C...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

That's correct. They are excellent socialist programs but most other
socialist programs are not excellent.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1803122305070001@66-53-210-
77.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

What "socialist programs" do you object to? Regulations
that give us clean water and clean air? Regulations that
protect our food from contamination? Regulations that keep
our stock market honest? Regulations that protect consumers
from dangerous and defective products?

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01B4FC0EE04D...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

Most all of them except for social programs to help people such as social
security, medicare and medicaid.

[tirebiter]

On Mar 19, 1:45 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <XnsA01B4FC0EE04Dnomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote innews:Jason-1803122305070001@66-53-210-
> > 77.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>

> > > In article <4F662B7C.6142D...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky
> > > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Jason wrote:
>
> > >> > In article <4F5ECE52.29861...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

> > >> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > >> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>
> > >> > > > > We share world views and points of view. We hate socialism.
>
> > >> > > >     What government programs do you consider to be "socialism"?
>
> > >> > > Any that he doesn't personally benefit from.
>
> > >> > Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak, Medicaid.
>
> > >> "I am in favor of Social Security and Medicare" - Jason
>
> > > That's correct. They are excellent socialist programs but most other
> > > socialist programs are not excellent.
>
> >     What "socialist programs" do you object to? Regulations
> > that give us clean water and clean air? Regulations that
> > protect our food from contamination? Regulations that keep
> > our stock market honest? Regulations that protect consumers
> > from dangerous and defective products?
>
> Most all of them except for social programs to help people such as social
> security, medicare and medicaid.

You didn't provide a single one that you object to. All social
programs are designed to help people.

---
a.a. #2273

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-19031...@66-53-216-121.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Name a social program you object to.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01BB26D02C21...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

List about 5 social programs and some info. about each of them and I will
tell you if I object to any of them.

[tirebiter]

On Mar 20, 2:10 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> In article <XnsA01BB26D02C21nomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >news:Jason-19031...@66-53-216-121.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>

> > > In article <XnsA01B4FC0EE04Dnomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>,

> > > Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >>news:Jason-18031...@66-53-210-77.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

>
> > >> > In article <4F662B7C.6142D...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

> > >> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Jason wrote:
>
> > >> >> > In article <4F5ECE52.29861...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

> > >> >> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>
> > >> >> > > > > We share world views and points of view. We hate
> > >> >> > > > > socialism.
>
> > >> >> > > >     What government programs do you consider to be
> > >> >> > > >     "socialism"?
>
> > >> >> > > Any that he doesn't personally benefit from.
>
> > >> >> > Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak,
> > >> >> > Medicaid.
>
> > >> >> "I am in favor of Social Security and Medicare" - Jason
>
> > >> > That's correct. They are excellent socialist programs but most
> > >> > other socialist programs are not excellent.
>
> > >>     What "socialist programs" do you object to? Regulations
> > >> that give us clean water and clean air? Regulations that
> > >> protect our food from contamination? Regulations that keep
> > >> our stock market honest? Regulations that protect consumers
> > >> from dangerous and defective products?
>
> > > Most all of them except for social programs to help people such as
> > > social security, medicare and medicaid.
>
> >     Name a social program you object to.
>
> List about 5 social programs and some info. about each of them and I will
> tell you if I object to any of them.

You keep talking about how you hate "most" so-called socialist
programs but you can't even name a single one?

Think about that for a second.

---
a.a. #2273

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-1903122210400001@66-53-213-
73.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Huh?

You complain about "socialist government programs"
but cannot name a single one you object to?

Amazing.............

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01C4BE652688...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

OK--this one was mentioned by Mallard Fillmore today. He referred to it as
the Federal Office of Duplicate Services. It refers to various departments
(example: two or three different farm programs) that have duplicate
functions. In those cases, they should all be combined into ONE federal
program. It would save billions of dollars per year if it was done.
Another case: Duplicate federal trasportation programs.

This is a federal program that I would object to: Natural Gas-Run
Vehicles Program. It was mentioned in the newspaper today. Both Senator
Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer--both very liberal democrats
voted in favor of that program. It would have provided tax credits for the
widespead use of vehicles running on natural gas. Good news--there were
enough republicans voting against it to keep it from passing.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-20031...@67-150-120-21.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

So you are against a program that would mean
less imported oil and fewer US dollars going to
Arab sheikdoms that use it to finance terrorsim
and "death to America" schools all over the world.

Why do you hate America?

[linuxgal]

Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> You complain about "socialist government programs"
> but cannot name a single one you object to?
>

Certainly not the military.

[ala]

"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:E9ydnbQf-vNAsPTS...@giganews.com...

have you ever noticed that the people who yell the loudest about
wanting the guv out of their lives are inevitably on social security
medicare,, unemployment, food stamps, medicaid, and any other variety of
government subsidized and or run things

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01CA8E3A8CFC...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

No--if people want to buy those types of vehicles--they should buy them. I
don't want my tax money to be used to pay people to buy them. I found out
last week that tax money is used to encourage people to buy Chevy Volt
vehicles. Those types of vehicles cost over $60,000 per vehicle. The only
people that are buying them are rich people. That means that my tax money
is used to help rich people buy Chevy Volts. Does that make any sense to
anyone but stupid liberal democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer. She is
rich so probably owns a a Chevy Volt or new Mercedes.

[Alex W.]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:43:13 -0800, Jason wrote:

> if people want to buy those types of vehicles--they should buy them. I
> don't want my tax money to be used to pay people to buy them. I found out
> last week that tax money is used to encourage people to buy Chevy Volt
> vehicles. Those types of vehicles cost over $60,000 per vehicle. The only
> people that are buying them are rich people. That means that my tax money
> is used to help rich people buy Chevy Volts. Does that make any sense to
> anyone but stupid liberal democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer. She is
> rich so probably owns a a Chevy Volt or new Mercedes.

The government subsidises EVERY car that is made and sold in the
US. Whether it's Cash For Clunkers, tax relief for US carmakers
or out-and-out cash inducements for foreign manufacturers, every
single vehicle that is made and sold in America is part-funded by
the taxpayer. There is no difference whatsoever in that regard
between a Volt and a Mercedes and a F-150 -- your tax dollars
support them all.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-20031...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Where is this "my tax money" objection when
it comes to tax subsidies for the richest companies
in the world?



Oil companies keep subsidies
May 17, 2011

WASHINGTON -- After a full day of debate in which senators
agreed that gas was too expensive and almost nothing else,
a Democratic proposal to strip $2 billion in annual tax
subsidies from five major oil companies failed Tuesday.

The vote was on a procedural question - whether to bring
the bill to the floor for debate. Such motions require 60
votes to pass so while the bill earned a majority, 52 to
48, it still fell short. (Every Democrat voted for it
except Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska
and Mark Begich of Alaska while all Republicans except
Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted against it.)
http://tinyurl.com/7yea9na

[Jason]

In article <1ruecrn9lg2fu.h...@40tude.net>, ing...@yahoo.co.uk
wrote:

I am sure that you are correct. I purchased a used Honda Accord from a
Honda Dealership and as far as I know, the federal gov't did not provide
any money to help me pay for it or to lower the cost of that used Honda
Accord.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01D520DAFC2C...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

I am in favor of the above subsidies since they help to keep the price of
gasoline lower than it would be without those subsidies. Lots of poor
people can't afford to pay $5.00 per gallon. Why do you hate poor people
:-))

[tirebiter]

On Mar 20, 2:10 am, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <XnsA01BB26D02C21nomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> >news:Jason-19031...@66-53-216-121.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>

> > > In article <XnsA01B4FC0EE04Dnomailcomcast...@216.196.121.131>,

> > > Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in

> > >>news:Jason-18031...@66-53-210-77.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>
> > >> > In article <4F662B7C.6142D...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

> > >> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> Jason wrote:
>
> > >> >> > In article <4F5ECE52.29861...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

> > >> >> > <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> > >> >> > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
>
> > >> >> > > > > We share world views and points of view. We hate
> > >> >> > > > > socialism.
>
> > >> >> > > >     What government programs do you consider to be
> > >> >> > > >     "socialism"?
>
> > >> >> > > Any that he doesn't personally benefit from.
>
> > >> >> > Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak,
> > >> >> > Medicaid.
>
> > >> >> "I am in favor of Social Security and Medicare" - Jason
>
> > >> > That's correct. They are excellent socialist programs but most
> > >> > other socialist programs are not excellent.
>
> > >>     What "socialist programs" do you object to? Regulations
> > >> that give us clean water and clean air? Regulations that
> > >> protect our food from contamination? Regulations that keep
> > >> our stock market honest? Regulations that protect consumers
> > >> from dangerous and defective products?
>
> > > Most all of them except for social programs to help people such as
> > > social security, medicare and medicaid.
>
> >     Name a social program you object to.
>
> List about 5 social programs and some info. about each of them and I will
> tell you if I object to any of them.

Jason,

Did you ever find even one socialist program that you object to? You
keep saying how the government is overflowing with them, you shouldn't
have any trouble finding just one that is unacceptable.

---
a.a. #2273

[ala]

"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message

news:Jason-21031...@67-150-121-145.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...

>
> I am in favor of the above subsidies since they help to keep the price of
> gasoline lower than it would be without those subsidies. Lots of poor
> people can't afford to pay $5.00 per gallon. Why do you hate poor people
> :-))
>
>

as far as i can tell the subsidies go to the corporation to keep their
profit margin

if the subsidies were going to keep the price down, the price would be DOWN

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-21031...@67-150-121-145.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Let's see: Your tax dollars go to wealthy oil companies,
who give part of it to Arab sheikdoms, who then give it to
Wahabi schools to train young muslims to hate America and
kill Americans.

And you are OK with that?

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01DE06CFA849...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

no

[Jason]

In article <hpmdncPWBcWWEPfS...@earthlink.com>, "ala"

Perhaps the price of gasoline would be over $5.00 per gallon if it was not
for those subsidies.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-21031...@67-150-121-145.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Just to correct you on the Volt, Jason. The unsubsidized price is about
$40,000. The government subsidy brings it down to about $32,000.

http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car/

Now, before you try to blame Obama for the Chevy Volt, it was being
designed well before he took office, and was first shown at auto shows
in 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in news:Jason-2103122041320001@67-150-125-
186.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Of course you are. You just said you approve of tax
subsidies to oil companies. Instead of that consider:

LNG is made in America by Americans and sold
to motorists who drive LNG cars, thus increasing
employment AND reducing pollution. Don't you agree
that it should be encouraged?

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-E195FC...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Did you read the news story indicating that the vast majority of the
buyers of Chevy Volts make over a $100,000 per year. Do you want your tax
money to be used to help upper class people pay for their new Chevy Volts?
Have you also read the news stories about some of the Chevy Volts catching
on fire due to the batteries over-heating? I have only saw two Chevy Volts
in this city. It's my guess that they are not selling very many of them.
On the other hand, I have seen hundreds of new Toyota Prius cars.

[Jason]

In article <XnsA01E4C78049E7...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell

I understand your point of view. I have a different point of view. If
people want to buy vehicles that run on LNG--that's OK with me. However, I
don't want my tax money to be used to help pay for those vehicles or for
Chevy Volts.

[Tom McDonald]

But you're OK with subsidizing the oil folks. Fraud.

[Jason]

In article <zsJar.21775$OX6...@newsfe13.iad>, Tom McDonald

Only because it will mean that gasoline in America will cost as low as
possible. As you know, many poor people and even middle class people would
have a difficult time paying for gasoline if it cost more than $5.00 per

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-22031...@66-53-209-139.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Don't you want to reduce the budget deficit? If so, you want to stop the
payments to oil companies that are already making billions of dollars a
year in profits. Otherwise, you are a hypocrite.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-22031...@66-53-214-216.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Why did you ignore this evidence that you lied?

> >
> > Now, before you try to blame Obama for the Chevy Volt, it was being
> > designed well before he took office, and was first shown at auto shows
> > in 2007.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

Why did you ignore this evidence that you lied?

>
> Did you read the news story indicating that the vast majority of the
> buyers of Chevy Volts make over a $100,000 per year. Do you want your tax
> money to be used to help upper class people pay for their new Chevy Volts?
> Have you also read the news stories about some of the Chevy Volts catching
> on fire due to the batteries over-heating? I have only saw two Chevy Volts
> in this city. It's my guess that they are not selling very many of them.
> On the other hand, I have seen hundreds of new Toyota Prius cars.

Why are you changing the subject? Can't you defend your original lies?

I have no problem with the government spending a few thousand dollars to
get people to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. After all, we need to
cut down on our use of energy, both for political reasons (not sending
money to Saudi Arabia), and health reasons (cleaner air is better for
us). The first Volts will be expensive, but as the technology is more
widely used, it will become cheaper.

You really are a hypocrite. You are against giving money to people so
they will buy more fuel efficient cars, but support giving money to
billionaires who run oil companies that make billions in profits.

BTW, one reason you see lots of Pruis' is that they have been on sale
for about 10 years, rather than the 6 months or so for the Volt.

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/22/2012 2:33 PM, Jason wrote:
> In article<zsJar.21775$OX6...@newsfe13.iad>, Tom McDonald
> <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/22/2012 11:21 AM, Jason wrote:
>>> In article<XnsA01E4C78049E7...@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell
>>> Holman<nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

<snip>

>>>> Of course you are. You just said you approve of tax
>>>> subsidies to oil companies. Instead of that consider:
>>>>
>>>> LNG is made in America by Americans and sold
>>>> to motorists who drive LNG cars, thus increasing
>>>> employment AND reducing pollution. Don't you agree
>>>> that it should be encouraged?
>>>
>>> I understand your point of view. I have a different point of view. If
>>> people want to buy vehicles that run on LNG--that's OK with me. However, I
>>> don't want my tax money to be used to help pay for those vehicles or for
>>> Chevy Volts.
>>>
>>>
>> But you're OK with subsidizing the oil folks. Fraud.
>
> Only because it will mean that gasoline in America will cost as low as
> possible.

Really? You do know that oil is fungible. I know you do, because we've
had this conversation before. Oil companies sell their product where it
will make the most money. Oil companies who produce oil in America sell
it where it will make the most money. They don't sell just to America,
and they don't reduce their prices to Americans because they get
subsidies from us.

So all oil subsidies do is increase oil company profits--they don't
reduce prices for Americans. Of course, if you'd prefer that the
government commandeer the means of oil production in America, and only
sell the product to the American market, you might have a point. But, of
course, that would be actual socialism. You know, the thing you have no
idea of but throw the word around as though you did?

> As you know, many poor people and even middle class people would
> have a difficult time paying for gasoline if it cost more than $5.00 per
> gallon. Why do you hate poor people :-))
>

Oil and gas exploration and production under Obama is at at least decade
high. Under Obama, we have more oil producing rigs/pumps than the rest
of the world combined. Yet you and your masters keep blaming Obama for
high fuel prices in the same way you didn't when prices were as high or
higher under Bush.

Why do you hate the truth?

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-0C5E28...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It appears that I care far more about poor people than you do. It also
appears you don't care if poor people have to pay more than $5.00 a gallon
for gas.

[Jason]

In article <4CNar.6543$vV....@newsfe03.iad>, Tom McDonald

The truth is that the reason for that is because Bush2 approved most of
those oil wells many years ago.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-F65715...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It's very easy for anyone to buy a new vehicle that runs on LNG. Honda has
new vehicles that run on LNG. They cost more than a normal car but cost
far less than Chevy Volts.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-22031...@67-150-123-68.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

No answer here.

> >
> > You really are a hypocrite. You are against giving money to people so
> > they will buy more fuel efficient cars, but support giving money to
> > billionaires who run oil companies that make billions in profits.

No comment here, I see. What the matter? Didn't Rush give you an answer?

> >
> > BTW, one reason you see lots of Pruis' is that they have been on sale
> > for about 10 years, rather than the 6 months or so for the Volt.
>
> It's very easy for anyone to buy a new vehicle that runs on LNG. Honda has
> new vehicles that run on LNG. They cost more than a normal car but cost
> far less than Chevy Volts.

How many have you seen? You seem very adept at trying to change the
subject when shown to be wrong. Why did you bring up LNG powered cars?
They weren't previously mentioned?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-22031...@67-150-123-68.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

Evidence?

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-22031...@67-150-123-68.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

You care more about poor people than I? You are a lying hypocrite. You
support Republican candidates who want to lower taxes on the rich, raise
them on the poor, all the while shredding the social safety net. Explain
how that shows your "care" for the poor, you liar.

Tell me, do you support the Ryan Republican budget? You know, the one
that guts Medicare and Medicaid? The one that says that by 2025, the
only government discretionary spending will be on defense, because there
won't be any money left?
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/21/paul_ryan_s_plan_to_elimi
nate_the_entire_non_health_non_military_undertakings_of_the_federal_gover
nment.html>
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/23/2012 1:23 AM, Jason wrote:
> In article<4CNar.6543$vV....@newsfe03.iad>, Tom McDonald

OK. Show me the evidence. I don't believe you. And in any case, that
does not explain the massive increase in permitting under Obama.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-A78C7A...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I have seen several of them. I seem to recall they have the logo LNG on
the trunk. I seen a new Honda Civic LNG in a Honda Dealership show room
yesterday. If I recall correctly, the new Honda Civic cost about $22,000
and the new Honda Civic LNG cost about $28,000.

The subject came up last week when a poster asked me for a socialist
program that should be discontinued. I opened the newspaper that day and
noticed a story about a bill that would grant discounts to people that
purchased LNG vehicles. Both Barbara Boxer and Dianne Fienstein (spelling)
voted in favor of that bill. However, it was defeated. I stated that I was
against such bills and laws since they were socialist bills and laws. If
people want to buy Chevy Volts or Honda Civic LNG vehicles--I don't want
my tax money used to help those people pay for their vehicles.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-EAD0A8...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Perhaps tomorrow--I will use my other computer to find the evidence. The
story was mentioned on Fox News yesterday. It had something to do with
lease agreements taking time--such as 5 or more years.

[ala]

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:zsJar.21775$OX6...@newsfe13.iad...

>>
>>
> But you're OK with subsidizing the oil folks. Fraud.

I saw families like that interviewed on (I think Stossel) what a crazy story

[ala]

"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@charter.net> wrote in message

news:wH%ar.22310$OX6....@newsfe13.iad...

"Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be president, and anyone who
doesn't grow up can be vice president." --American comedian Johnny Carson
(1925-2005)

[Father Haskell]

On Mar 23, 5:55 pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> The subject came up last week when a poster asked me for a socialist
> program that should be discontinued. I opened the newspaper that day and
> noticed a story about a bill that would grant discounts to people that
> purchased LNG vehicles. Both Barbara Boxer and Dianne Fienstein (spelling)
> voted in favor of that bill. However, it was defeated. I stated that I was
> against such bills and laws since they were socialist bills and laws. If
> people want to buy Chevy Volts or Honda Civic LNG vehicles--I don't want
> my tax money used to help those people pay for their vehicles.

You don't want your tax money used to keep money out of
OPEC's hands?

[ala]

"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzin-26F7FF...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> You care more about poor people than I? You are a lying hypocrite. You
> support Republican candidates who want to lower taxes on the rich, raise
> them on the poor, all the while shredding the social safety net. Explain
> how that shows your "care" for the poor, you liar.
>
> Tell me, do you support the Ryan Republican budget? You know, the one
> that guts Medicare and Medicaid? The one that says that by 2025, the
> only government discretionary spending will be on defense, because there
> won't be any money left?
> <http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/03/21/paul_ryan_s_plan_to_elimi
> nate_the_entire_non_health_non_military_undertakings_of_the_federal_gover
> nment.html>
> http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3708

Jesus did not help just the sick who could afford to pay for it." --Sen.
John Kerry (D-MA)

[ala]

"Father Haskell" <father...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:802b75e1-3df8-4b26...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

"[A]s poor as the economy is in Mississippi and in Alabama, for them to vote
for the richest guy who endorses the policies that reinforces their economic
problems is absolutely throwing reason out the window. But if you're driven
by hate and bias, and that is peppered by these talk-radio, hate-radio guys,
then you don't even think about the fact that you're suffering under these
policies. You vote for the policies that caused your suffering." --MSNBC's
Al Sharpton

[Jason]

In article
<802b75e1-3df8-4b26...@l7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, Father
Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 5:55=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > The subject came up last week when a poster asked me for a socialist
> > program that should be discontinued. I opened the newspaper that day and
> > noticed a story about a bill that would grant discounts to people that

> > purchased LNG vehicles. Both Barbara Boxer and Dianne Fienstein (spelling=
> )
> > voted in favor of that bill. However, it was defeated. I stated that I wa=

> s
> > against such bills and laws since they were socialist bills and laws. If
> > people want to buy Chevy Volts or Honda Civic LNG vehicles--I don't want
> > my tax money used to help those people pay for their vehicles.
>
> You don't want your tax money used to keep money out of
> OPEC's hands?

In those cases, the answer is NO. If people want to buy Honda Civic LNG
vehicles or Chevy Volts--let them pay for them without getting any money
or discounts from the government.

[Alex W.]

Whyever not? Everybody else is getting discounts and subsidies.

What's more, you should welcome electric and autogas cars: they
use less petrol, meaning there is more of it for the rest of us.

[Alex W.]

That's because Jesus was a crypto-commie subversive, and a Jewish
Arab to boot!

[Tom McDonald]

So it's OK by you if the government gives billions of dollars a year to
the oil companies to keep using a fuel we are running out of, but it's a
bad thing for that same government to encourage folks to switch to more
abundant or even renewable energy cars?

IOW, you are fine with government programs that benefit the rich, but
hate government programs that benefit the middle class and poor.

And the tragi-comic thing is that you have dutifully bought the
decades-long propaganda that has gotten you to vote and agitate against
your own, and your neighbors', interests.

[RichTravsky]

Jason wrote:
>
> In article <4F662B7C...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky
> <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > Jason wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <4F5ECE52...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky
> > > <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> > >
> > > > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > > >

> > > > > > We share world views and points of view. We hate socialism.
> > > > >
> > > > > What government programs do you consider to be "socialism"?
> > > >
> > > > Any that he doesn't personally benefit from.
> > >
> > > Any program controlled by the government--examples Amtrak, Medicaid.
> >
> > "I am in favor of Social Security and Medicare" - Jason
>
> That's correct. They are excellent socialist programs but most other
> socialist programs are not excellent.

But you're still a socialist.

[ala]

"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:10oobmizixo5i$.mna5ewf7ild3.dlg@40tude.net...

especially the financial services industries

http://www.philly.com/philly/columnists/joseph-distefano/20120311_PhillyDeals___Broken_windows___Saving_U_S__from_financial_fraud.html

JOSEPH N. DISTEFANO

PhillyDeals: 'Broken windows': Saving U.S. from financial fraud

Back in the fat years, before so many of its heavy users went broke, the
credit card industry down in Wilmington recruited a string of former FBI
officials. Bankers wanted their anti-Mafia experience - to fight fraud and
to sell more credit cards to law enforcement pros.

Over breakfast at the Hotel du Pont one morning in the late 1990s, former
FBI Deputy Director William J. Esposito and former New York boss
investigator Jules Bonavolonta, newly hired by the former MBNA Corp., told
me one reason their Federal Bureau of Investigation had lately managed to
break up long-standing ethnic gangs: The end of the Cold War freed the
agency from a lot of domestic political monitoring, so it could
systematically pursue gunmen, industrial shakedown artists, and their
professional enablers.

What about white-collar criminals? I asked. They're next, they told me.

Then the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks sent a lot of FBI resources back
to watching a new generation of potential radicals.

Meanwhile, financial fraud has thrived, to where some bank-watchers say it's
a national security threat.



Busted windows

The political scientist James Q. Wilson, who died March 2, is remembered for
his "broken-windows" theory: Suppress graffiti, vandals, streetwalking
prostitutes, window-smashing burglars, and you'll find violent drug gangs
and stickup men go away. It seemed to work, at least in Rudolph Giuliani's
New York.

Financial crime needs a similar approach, argues University of
Missouri-Kansas City professor William K. Black, who used to fight mortgage
fraud for the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.

Wilson didn't take white-collar crime too seriously. But to Black, in a
column published last week by UMKC's New Economic Perspectives, the
parallels are clear: "Anticonsumer frauds are a direct assault" on the
public. A little leads to a lot: Bosses, financial officers, and salespeople
who cheat and get away with it "erode peer restraints on misconduct."

Look what happened to the home-loan business, says Black: "It was
overwhelmingly the lenders and their agents" who put the lies in the
so-called liar loans that blew up giant banks and stalled the home-building,
home-finance, and homeownership machine that used to power the U.S. economy.

At the corporate level, "earnings management" corrupts financial staff,
auditors, executive compensation consultants, sales managers. The State of
Delaware, legal home to half the companies on the New York Stock Exchange,
made things worse when its business-friendly courts agreed to let companies
weaken their old "fiduciary duties of loyalty and care." So, everybody does
it - and you end up with the recent financial crisis, and the next one.

[ala]

"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:safllc30o8g4.x...@40tude.net...

they NEVER paiint him wearing pink

[Alex W.]

Nah, but they always depict him as being pink.
He would have been short, swarthy, dark-haired and sunburned.
Look at any picture of a desert Arab (bedouin), and you know what
he would have looked like -- and not like a pale Anglo-Saxon
Hollywoody type.

[ala]

"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:1pig2v6msz0pv$.1r300cv448d7s$.dlg@40tude.net...

true that

[ala]

"Mitchell Holman" <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:XnsA01D520DAFC2C...@216.196.121.131...

>
>
> Oil companies keep subsidies
> May 17, 2011
>
> WASHINGTON -- After a full day of debate in which senators
> agreed that gas was too expensive and almost nothing else,
> a Democratic proposal to strip $2 billion in annual tax
> subsidies from five major oil companies failed Tuesday.
>
> The vote was on a procedural question - whether to bring
> the bill to the floor for debate. Such motions require 60
> votes to pass so while the bill earned a majority, 52 to
> 48, it still fell short. (Every Democrat voted for it
> except Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska
> and Mark Begich of Alaska while all Republicans except
> Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine voted against it.)
> http://tinyurl.com/7yea9na
>

btw santorum just won Louisiana

[ala]

"Jason" <Ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Jason-20031...@67-150-126-219.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com...
> In article <
>
> No--if people want to buy those types of vehicles--they should buy them. I

> don't want my tax money to be used to pay people to buy them. I found out
> last week that tax money is used to encourage people to buy Chevy Volt
> vehicles. Those types of vehicles cost over $60,000 per vehicle. The only
> people that are buying them are rich people. That means that my tax money
> is used to help rich people buy Chevy Volts. Does that make any sense to
> anyone but stupid liberal democrats like Senator Barbara Boxer. She is
> rich so probably owns a a Chevy Volt or new Mercedes.
>
>

i believe you are envious but you should be patient

"But many that are first will be last, and the last first."

[Jason]

In article <4F6E5110...@hotmMOVEail.com>, RichTravsky

Only in some cases.

[Jason]

In article <10oobmizixo5i$.mna5ewf7...@40tude.net>,

I have stated that I don't mind when people by Honda Civic LNG vehicles;
Chevy Volts; Toyata Priuses, electric cars or any other types of cars that
they they want to buy. The gov't should not provide them with any money to
buy those types of vehicles.

[Jason]

In article <f9jbr.6013$Yx....@newsfe04.iad>, Tom McDonald

Yes, and I have already told you the reason.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-24031...@66-53-212-206.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Sadly, we know the reason. YOu are a sucker, Jason. Plus, you are a
puppet who has demonstrated the complete lack of ability to think for
yourself. So, you let Rush, Faux Noise, etc., make your decisions for
you. It really is sad.

[ala]

"David Fritzinger" <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:dfritzin-2553B8...@news.eternal-september.org...

>
> Sadly, we know the reason. YOu are a sucker, Jason. Plus, you are a
> puppet who has demonstrated the complete lack of ability to think for
> yourself. So, you let Rush, Faux Noise, etc., make your decisions for
> you. It really is sad.

would he know that Rush insulted McNabb much less who McNabb is?

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-2553B8...@news.eternal-september.org>,

And you let the scientists that you agree with make your decisions about
what to believe about macro and micro evolution.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-25031...@67-150-122-180.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Nope, you are wrong again. I have looked at the evidence (remember I am
a Ph.D. in biochemistry and have worked in molecular biology for most of
my professional life), so I have actually looked at the evidence myself.

The bottom line is that not everyone acts as you act-ignoring facts when
they are inconvenient for what you want to believe. Most people base
their lives on facts, not beliefs.

Besides, we weren't talking about evolution here. We were talking about
how you vote for people even though they promise to do things you don't
want done (massively increase the deficit and debt, destroy Medicare as
we know it, massively cut taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the poor).
Yet you vote for them, saying you hope Democrats won't let their bills
be passed. Just how stupid is that? (Answer: extremely stupid).

[Jeanne Douglas]

And once again you lie about this.

We DO NOT believe what scientists say. We do trust their EVIDENCE,
after it's been peer reviewed and confirmed.

JD

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-97AFAA...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Or a smart thing to do since I don't vote for democrats since so many of
them are advocates of socialism.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-26031...@67-150-127-92.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-97AFAA...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfri...@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-25031...@67-150-122-180.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

[snip]

> > Nope, you are wrong again. I have looked at the evidence (remember I am
> > a Ph.D. in biochemistry and have worked in molecular biology for most of
> > my professional life), so I have actually looked at the evidence myself.
> >
> > The bottom line is that not everyone acts as you act-ignoring facts when
> > they are inconvenient for what you want to believe. Most people base
> > their lives on facts, not beliefs.
> >
> > Besides, we weren't talking about evolution here. We were talking about
> > how you vote for people even though they promise to do things you don't
> > want done (massively increase the deficit and debt, destroy Medicare as
> > we know it, massively cut taxes on the rich, raise taxes on the poor).
> > Yet you vote for them, saying you hope Democrats won't let their bills
> > be passed. Just how stupid is that? (Answer: extremely stupid).
>
> Or a smart thing to do since I don't vote for democrats since so many of
> them are advocates of socialism.

No, a very stupid thing to do, since you don't support what the
Republicans say they want to do. Indeed, an idiotic thing. Of course,
the number of smart things you have said or done here could be counted
on the fingers of no hands.

Another idiotic thing you keep saying is that Democrats are advocates of
socialism. You don't have any idea whatsoever of what socialism is.
Hell, the current Democratic president is probably more conservative
than Eisenhower or Nixon, while teh current Republican party wouldn't
let Reagan (much less Nixon or Eisenhower) join the party, saying they
are nothing but a bunch of RINOs.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-FFBAC2...@news.eternal-september.org>,

I disagree. If he wins a second term--you will see for yourself how much
of a socialist Obama really is. As of now, he is making sure he does not
step on any American flags until after he wins a second term in office.
His former best friend named Bill Ayers was photographed as he stepped on
an American flag.

[Tom McDonald]

Yup. Obama is a communist who hates America. His sneaky plan is to look
moderate to conservative in his first term, and then create the Union of
Soviet Socialist States, complete with gulags and suppression of all
freedoms and rights.

Do you actually believe this, Jason? Really? What evidence do you have
that any of this is likely? Do you think somehow he knew he would be
re-elected? If not, then all of your paranoid ideation is moot.

[linuxgal]

Jason wrote:
>
> Or a smart thing to do since I don't vote for democrats since so many of
> them are advocates of socialism.
>

The difference between free-market capitalism and centrally-planned
liberal socialism is plenty.

[Jason]

In article <g%7cr.41135$%P4.3...@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

His plan is to bankrupt America by adding as much money to the national
debt as he can. Thank goodness, the republicans has voted against many of
his spending plans. Read this:


http://www.pnj.com/article/20120125/ELECTIONS/201250332/AP-fact-check-Obama-s-State-Union-speech


AP fact check: Obama's State of the Union speech

11:00 PM, Jan. 24, 2012 

Health care
OBAMA: "Our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a
government program."

THE FACTS: That's only half true. About half of the more than 30 million
uninsured Americans expected to gain coverage through the health care law
will be enrolled in a government program. Medicaid, the federal-state
program for low-income people, will be expanded starting in 2014 to cover
childless adults living near the poverty line.
The other half will be enrolled in private health plans through new
state-based insurance markets. But many of them will be receiving federal
subsidies to make their premiums more affordable. And that's a government
program, too.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-26031...@66-53-213-104.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

You are a complete, brainwashed idiot. Even if Obama wanted to turn this
into a socialist republic, he couldn't. He would have to get Congress to
go along with him, which they would never do.

And, how dare you accuse someone else of being unpatriotic. You, who
don't give a damn about the citizens of the US, which is clear since you
blindly follow what the right-wing wants you to follow. You who want us
to be involved in yet another war. You, who want to increase the deficit
and debt massively (since you support the Republican plans that will do
just that).

How do you even know that Ayers was ever a "best friend" of Obama. Will
your lying and dissembling ever stop?

[David Fritzinger]

In article <Jason-26031...@66.53.221.46>,

What about the Republican plans, that will not only bankrupt the country
even faster, but will also do so by giving money to the rich while
destroying the social safety net that Democrats have placed into effect,
against the wishes of Republicans? Remember, I've provided evidence that
the budget plans of all the Republican candidates would add far more to
the debt than Obama, by lowering taxes on the rich and shredding the
social safety net.
[snip oft-repeated garbage by Jason]

[Tom McDonald]

Sorry, still not a Stalinist commie pinko plot to overthrow the nation.

And, of course, the Republican budget will destroy nearly all current
social programs (most of which you support), increase defense spending
(when we are already spending nearly as much as the rest of the world
combined on defense, and are getting out of the only war we're currently
in), give even more huge tax breaks to the rich, and raise taxes on the
middle class and the poor.

And, even with all that, the Republican budget (the Ryan plan) will
*increase* the debt and the deficit.

You also have never, to my recollection, addressed the fact that Nixon,
Reagan and both Bushes would be too liberal to be nominated for
dogcatcher in the Republican party today. Of course, if you admitted
that, you'd have to admit that you've been hoodwinked by the
right-wingers who want nothing less than a return to the 19th century of
the Robber Barons era.

A point to ponder: If the Republicans get their way, you *won't* be a
Robber Baron--you'll be a penniless serf.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-BB3E2D...@news.eternal-september.org>,

You don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News. I do. That is the
source of my comments about Ayers and Obama being friends. I know that
Obama would never step on an American flag--It's an expression to make a
point that Obama is a socialist. Since you know how to use google--feel
free to look for information to prove that Ayers and Obama were never
friends. Do you want me to use my other computer to find a site that has
Obama and Ayers in the same picture or in the same video tape? I seem to
recall that they lived near to each other when Obama lived in Chicago.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-0CAE65...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Excellent points. Rush stated yesterday that Obama has added more to the
national debt in three years than any other president in their first three
years. Was he correct?

Rush played a tape today of Obama saying that his plans will bankrupt any
company that builds new coal fired plants. That means thousands of
potential jobs will be eliminated.

[Jason]

In article <46lcr.41943$%P4....@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

The democrats in Congress will not allow social programs to be shut
down--and you know that is true.

If the repubicans shut down social security or medicare--they will ALL be
defeated in their next elections. That is the reason they will not do it.
They don't want to lose their next election.

When both Bushes were in office--they did not try to shut down SS or
medicare. In fact, Bush2 added the prescription benefit. Remember?

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/27/2012 4:19 PM, Jason wrote:
> In article<46lcr.41943$%P4....@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

So your only hope to keep the programs even you know to be vital to
Americans is the party you detest? Do you see how you've been
manipulated to vote against your own interests? Probably not.

> If the repubicans shut down social security or medicare--they will ALL be
> defeated in their next elections. That is the reason they will not do it.
> They don't want to lose their next election.

Then why are they supporting the Ryan budget?

> When both Bushes were in office--they did not try to shut down SS or
> medicare. In fact, Bush2 added the prescription benefit. Remember?

You missed my point about the Bushes. My point is that they would be too
liberal for the present-day Republican party.

[Jason]

In article <Dkrcr.42985$%P4.1...@newsfe05.iad>, Tom McDonald

If Romney is elected, he will not end SS or Medicare since he will know
that it will mean he will be a one term president. That's the reason he
won't do it. As of now, he is just trying to get hard core republicans to
vote for him instead of voting for anyone else. After he wins, he will
STOP being conservative and will instead become "middle of the road". It's
all about politics. I have seen it happen before. I am no longer shocked
when it happens.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

[snip]

> The democrats in Congress will not allow social programs to be shut
> down--and you know that is true.

Do you realize how utterly idiotic that statement makes you look. You
are voting for Republicans who have said straight out that they will do
certain things you don't want them to do. Therefore, you are depending
on Democrats, who you hate and call socialists (though you have no idea
what a socialist is), to stop the Republican from doing what you voted
them in to do. That has to be the most idiotic statement I have seen you
make, and in your case, there is lots of competition.

>
> If the repubicans shut down social security or medicare--they will ALL be
> defeated in their next elections. That is the reason they will not do it.
> They don't want to lose their next election.
>
> When both Bushes were in office--they did not try to shut down SS or
> medicare. In fact, Bush2 added the prescription benefit. Remember?

GW Bush tried to shut down Social Security. You seem to forget that
little fact.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,

Do you remember the websites I told you to visit on this subject? The
fact is that >80% of the debt accumulated during the Obama
administration thus far is a result of Bush policies. Rush won't tell
you that, because it would show how dishonest he actually is.

>
> Rush played a tape today of Obama saying that his plans will bankrupt any
> company that builds new coal fired plants. That means thousands of
> potential jobs will be eliminated.

That was gone over during the 2008 election cycle. IIRC, Obama's words
were taken out of context. As usual, Rush is lying, and good little
puppet that you are, you spout whatever lies he tells you.

[David Fritzinger]

In article
<Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
[snip]

> You don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Fox News. I do. That is the
> source of my comments about Ayers and Obama being friends. I know that
> Obama would never step on an American flag--It's an expression to make a
> point that Obama is a socialist.

Will you stop with these lies! If you had a brain in your head, you
would realize that Obama is not a socialist. Hell, he is probably to the
right of Eisenhower and Nixon on many things. I realize you must lie
about Obama to justify your racial hatred of him, but your lies are very
transparent. It doesn't help you that you don't have the faintest idea
of what a socialist even is.

Oh, of course I don't listen to Limbaugh and Faux Noise. I don't like
being lied to, and you have been presented with mountains of evidence
that show that both lie through their teeth. It doesn't help that the
one time I did listen to Limbaugh, I found him to be a vile, hateful
wast of oxygen.

> Since you know how to use google--feel
> free to look for information to prove that Ayers and Obama were never
> friends. Do you want me to use my other computer to find a site that has
> Obama and Ayers in the same picture or in the same video tape? I seem to
> recall that they lived near to each other when Obama lived in Chicago.

Your claim. Your responsibility to back it up. One would think you would
begin to realize that by now.

BTW, what makes you think that living close to someone makes them your
best friend? That is as idiotic as most of the garbage you spout.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-60AA0F...@news.eternal-september.org>,

He played the tape of Obama making that statement.

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-EEBAC4...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Did he succeed?

[Jason]

In article <dfritzin-DBF47C...@news.eternal-september.org>,

It makes it more likely that they spent time together. Bill Ayers and
Obama served on the Woods Fund together as paid directors for three years.
Visit this site:

voices.washingtonpost.com/fact.../obamas_weatherman_connection.html

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-27031...@67-150-125-228.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

Bush's idea to "privatize" Social Security was so goofy
that even his own party rejected it. It sank faster than his
nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

[Mitchell Holman]

Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-27031...@66-53-208-42.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

How sad.

After years of digging for dirt about what Obama said
or did the most the Rightwing Slime Machine could come up
with is what his former preacher once said and what someone
on executive board with him once did.

Can you imagine the reaction if liberals attacked Bush
over what his college roomate did or attacked McCain over
something his ex wife once said?