Election Results: Once Voters Really Understand The Republican Agenda, They Reject It

[John Manning]

Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
in yesterday's elections.

A clearly chastened Ohio Gov. John Kasich, ringleader for the
extreme ALEC agenda, had to concede defeat as Senate Bill
5, legislation to decimate collective bargaining by state
employees, *went down in flames*

In the state of Mississippi, voters decided zygotes did *not* meet
the legal definition of personhood -- or even corporations.
(Helped along by the fact that even Haley Barbour said the wording
was too vague, so it may resurface.)

In Maine, voters retained same-day voter registration, despite
attempts to repeal it by their Tea party governor and his minions.

Democrats took just about every position that wasn't nailed down
in Connecticut municipal elections.

Iowa Dems held the State Senate tonight, which means marriage
equality in Iowa is safe.

Arizona recall voters took down wingnut Senate President Russell Pearce.

Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear of Kentucky takes a second term.

The anti-teacher Michigan Republican State Rep. Paul Scott
is successfully recalled.

Missoula, MT said no to corporate personhood.

NJ Dems won two more seats in races where Chris Christie campaigned
for the Republicans.

More added as it comes in, but all in all, it's a really good night
for Democrats and/or sanity.

-Multiple links:
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/election-results-once-voters-really-u

[Joe Bruno]

> -Multiple links:http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/election-results-once-voters-r...

I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
beats the Dem agenda.

[Davej]

On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> > [...]

> > Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
> > voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
> > in yesterday's elections.
>

> I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
> beats the Dem agenda.

Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.

[Joe Bruno]

I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.

[Davej]

Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?

[Just Wondering]

Would someone please provide a side-by-side, factual, objective
(stripped of partisan rhetoric and opinions) comparison of the Demo and
Repub agendas? Not the parties' political platforms, but provable facts
about things elected officials from the two parties have actually done
(or tried to do) in office during the last four years?

[Joe Bruno]

It's alot of empty promises and bullshit.It reveals a group of people
who are ignorant of economics.Very few of it's promises will ever be
kept and most Dems have no intention of even trying to keep them.

[John Baker]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:16:01 -0800 (PST), Davej <gal...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Why, expecting rich people to pay their fair share, of course. <G>

[sully]

how would you decide what is factual, JW?

For example, if one of my list of the Democtratic Agenda was
to try to fix the Health Care system, and listed the bill
passed, how they got some Repubs to vote for it, etc,
a typical right wing response to that FACT is the following:

"The Health Care Bill's goal was not about trying to fix a broken
health care system, it's goal was to have government take over
all of our lives".

This, of course, is a lie, but it prompts my question.

When I try to get facts, I try to go to journalistic sources,
read science, economic reports from gov't agencies, etc.

I look at things differently. I look at what solutions are best
for our country (in my opinion) and vote for who would
be more likely to accomplish those things.

[Dakota]

That's your problem, then. Trusted sources include only Rush Limbaugh,
Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel, World Net Daily, and the Holy Bible. :)

[sully]

boss tells me I got to get my mind right....

I think that's the answer, soak it in stupid.

[Just Wondering]

These responses to my post are a microcosm of the problem. Dems,
Repubs, left wingers, right wingers, liberals, conservatives, it makes
no difference. Each side castigates the other based on their own biased
viewpoints. It becomes impossible to shovel all the bullshit aside to
discover the actual facts.

[sully]

We've been here before. You and I can't possibly agree on
facts as I showed an example of above.

Try it. You tell me what the Health Care Bill was attempting
to achieve:

[Dakota]

Sorry for adding to the bullshit and your frustration, Just Wondering.
Usenet can be a source of information but you must go to elsewhere and
do your own research. Sully's post telling you where he finds
information is a good suggestion for where you should search for the
answers you seek. As many of the issues we face involve science, visit
some science sites to get their assessments. Government websites provide
tons of financial data you may find useful.

I also recommend that you evaluate the sources I listed. I believe that
you will agree that none is a reliable source of information concerning
our nation's current situation.

[Joe Bruno]

The only way to find out what a candidate stands for is to look up his
voting record.
He will vote for what he believes in.

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in
news:a883bf08-8289-4396...@u10g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

Just shows you don't know much history. Conservatives have been on the
wrong side of every important issue in this country from the Revolution
to the Founding to slavery, voting rights, women's rights, gay
rights...the whole gamut.

You are the backwards battery that keeps current from moving--but keep
enjoying those rights we got you, you ungrateful shitbird.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

Tea Parties are for little kids.

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 10, 8:54 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

Well, I can see that you really don't believe in freedom at all.What
you want is conformity.Rush Limbaugh says liberals are like that and
he is obviously right.
I thank you and Rush thanks you for your confirmation of our
suspicions.

[sully]

So never mind what Ron Paul professes, look at that he has
one of the highest earmark numbers in Texas.

[Mogons]

> suspicions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I've met plenty of conservatives who want conformity also. The gate
swings both ways.

mogons

[Joe Bruno]

What does that mean?

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 10, 8:47 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:16:01 -0800 (PST), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 9, 8:37 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> >> > > > [...]
> >> > > > Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
> >> > > > voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
> >> > > > in yesterday's elections.
>
> >> > > I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
> >> > > beats the Dem agenda.
>
> >> > Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.
>
> >> I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
>
> >Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?
>
> Why, expecting rich people to pay their fair share, of course. <G>

Those rich people are following the tax law written by Congress.
If you don't like the law, write Congress and tell them.Your notion of
"fair"
is a fantasy.

[Just Wondering]

Most people just want taxes to be fair. The trouble is, there are widely
divergent notions of what is fair.

[sully]

You could back up another step, none of us really want to pay taxes.

The first time my kids saw real paychecks, needless to say they were
QUITE disappointed...

[Logan Sacket]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 15:07:27 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

You mean you didn't know it was left?

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in

news:7c2d6a23-2de2-4be3...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 10, 8:54 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote

>> innews:a883bf08-8289-4396-b1c7-34b0e8cd
> 39...@u10g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

You--an idiot scumbag conservative--use the word "freedom"...but your
kind sided with King George against the Revolution. Liberals took this
country from the British.

Your kind started a war to fight for the ability to keep slaves. Liberals
took those slaves away and gave them their freedom.

Your kind started the Klan and the NRA, two terrorist organizations aimed
at suppressing blacks' newfound freedoms.

Your kind were funneling money to Germany in the 1930's and '40s until
Congress made it illegal.

Your kind couldn't abandon the Democrats fast enough when the Civil
Rights Act was signed into law. You freaked the fuck out and brought in
the National Guard to keep little black kids from attending public
schools. Your kind are using the "drug war" to continue disenfranchising
blacks--lock them up so they can't vote.

You, conservative scumbag asshole, need to keep your fucking tongue on a
leash when you're using the word "freedom."

[Don Kresch]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:05:44 -0700, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:

There's no such thing as a fair tax, which makes it even more
tricky.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[STOP VOTING FOR THE WEALTHY]

In article <1a472692-a6f1-4180...@q39g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Joe Bruno says...

Congress represents the will of the rich.

>If you don't like the law, write Congress and tell them.

How will that make them stop representing the will of the rich?

>Your notion of "fair"is a fantasy.

Your notion of how America is ruled is a fantasy.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <Xns9F9AB274E361...@216.196.121.131>, Doc Smartass

>Your kind started the Klan and the NRA, two terrorist organizations...

€€€ the NRA is a terrorist organization?

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

[Joe Bruno]

Is that why the GOP controls the House of Representatives and 29 state
governorships? Once people see your agenda, they laugh and ignore you.

[Doc Smartass]

r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote in
news:rL-121111...@10.0.1.4:

Not in the KKK sense, and not in the way Michael Moore claimed in
"Bowling for Columbine"; I should have put the NRA a bit later on in the
rant, speaking to their behavior these days in trying to keep the
paranoid wing of the membership terrified that the Big Gun Ban Apocalypse
is coming any day now.

These days, their nutjob mouthpiece president is claiming that the fact
that Obama hasn't banned guns means that he's going to ban them any day
now:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-
conspiracy-not-ban-

http://tinyurl.com/3gl69x4

...and Obama's givin' machine guns to the Mexican drug lords so he can
take away all the gunnnnz!

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/nra_thinks_obama_let_gu
ns_walk_to_mexico_to_crackd.php

http://tinyurl.com/7okolwx

I really wish they'd go back to their roots (promoting responsible
ownership and use of firearms) and stop this crap.

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 12, 12:43 am, STOP VOTING FOR THE WEALTHY
<STOP_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <1a472692-a6f1-4180-bbb4-a19f71bd6...@q39g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,

It works for me.Get on a boat and leave.

[Logan Sacket]

Doc,

Why bother to take the guns away from the people in the first place,
other than to take more of their rights away, despite the 2nd
amendment. It's no secret that Obama want's to remove guns from the
people. This is what fueled the dramatic rise in gun purchases after
his election. Yes, guns flags and church mean things and having the
president make fun of them isn't a comforting thought.

This has been an ongoing battle coming from the Democrats for decades
now. What and who is behind it and what is the end game?
If you honestly can answer these questions you hopefully will think
twice before posting off the cuff nonsense.

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <Xns9F9BDCE7619F...@216.196.121.131>, Doc Smartass

€€€ agreed

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 13, 6:29 am, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 21:42:51 -0600, Doc Smartass
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:
> >r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote in
> >news:rL-121111...@10.0.1.4:
>

> >> In article <Xns9F9AB274E3613askifyouwan...@216.196.121.131>, Doc
> >> Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote in

> >>>news:7c2d6a23-2de2-4be3...@u10g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>
> >>>> On Nov 10, 8:54 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote
> >>>>> innews:a883bf08-8289-4396-b1c7-34b0e8cd

> >>>> 3...@u10g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

> >http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/nra_thinks_obama_le...

> >ns_walk_to_mexico_to_crackd.php
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/7okolwx
>
> >I really wish they'd go back to their roots (promoting responsible
> >ownership and use of firearms) and stop this crap.
>
> Doc,
>
> Why bother to take the guns away from the people in the first place,
> other than to take more of their rights away, despite the 2nd
> amendment.  It's no secret that Obama want's to remove guns from the
> people. This is what fueled the dramatic rise in gun purchases after
> his election.  Yes, guns flags and church mean things and having the
> president make fun of them isn't a comforting thought.
>
> This has been an ongoing battle coming from the Democrats for decades
> now.  What and who is behind it and what is the end game?
> If you honestly can answer these questions you hopefully will think
> twice before posting off the cuff nonsense.

Before I joined the GOP, I joined the NRA.The assault weapon ban was
the reason for both.

[Doc Smartass]

r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote in

news:rL-131111...@10.0.1.4:

> In article <Xns9F9BDCE7619F...@216.196.121.131>, Doc
> Smartass <Fortbr...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

<snip>

>>> €€€ the NRA is a terrorist organization?
>>
>>Not in the KKK sense, and not in the way Michael Moore claimed in
>>"Bowling for Columbine"; I should have put the NRA a bit later on in
>>the rant, speaking to their behavior these days in trying to keep the
>>paranoid wing of the membership terrified that the Big Gun Ban
>>Apocalypse is coming any day now.
>>
>>These days, their nutjob mouthpiece president is claiming that the
>>fact that Obama hasn't banned guns means that he's going to ban them
>>any day now:
>>
>>http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-
>>conspiracy-not-ban-
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/3gl69x4
>>
>>...and Obama's givin' machine guns to the Mexican drug lords so he can
>>take away all the gunnnnz!
>>
>>http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/nra_thinks_obama_let_
>>guns_walk_to_mexico_to_crackd.php
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/7okolwx
>>
>>I really wish they'd go back to their roots (promoting responsible
>>ownership and use of firearms) and stop this crap.
>
> €€€ agreed

I found one thing about the NRA very interesting: they were active in
helping blacks defend themselves in segregated towns.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960

The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town
where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to
preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were
subject to brutal, sadistic violence.

It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive
through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician
who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of
racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the
house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black
veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.

Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the
small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen
with no casualties reported on either side.

Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of
the NAACP and founded a 60-member, NRA-chartered rifle club, described
the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in
1998 by Wayne State University Press.

According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of
vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases,
police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took
steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases,
fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their
intended victims were armed.

Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot
any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men
who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.

(more at the link)

See, I could support this NRA. If they'd divest themselves of the right-
wing paranoia...

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in

news:c4e3d49c-c577-4dd8...@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:

(piggybacking)

Show me where Obama's made a single move to take guns away. Clinton's
assault-rifle ban was allowed to expire in 2004. Obama hasn't made a move
or a call to get it reinstated--and the right time for it would have been
when the Dems had the House and Senate. While he admitted that he'd like
to see that ban reinstated, he acknowledged during his campaign that he
didn't have the votes in Congress to get legislation passed.

I did a search on "Obama gun ban" and came up with plenty of paranoid
claims (from the NRA and other hysterics) that he was gonna take
everyone's guns and even had a wish list--but FactCheck.org puts the lie
to those claims:

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/12/obamas-gun-ban/

Q: Did Obama promise last year to ban all semi-automatic guns during his
first year as president?

A: A widely circulated e-mail quoting Obama is baseless and almost
certainly fabricated. He does support reinstatement of the expired
"assault weapons ban" but isn�t calling for a wider ban on all semi-
automatic weapons. He said repeatedly during the campaign, "I am not
going to take your guns away."

Full breakdown and speech video at the link.

Paranoia driven by the NRA is what drove gun sales after Obama's
election. I stand by what I said about them.

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 13, 12:51 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com>
wrote:

> r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote innews:rL-131111...@10.0.1.4:
>

> > In article <Xns9F9BDCE7619F9askifyouwan...@216.196.121.131>, Doc

> Books!http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

>
> Tea Parties are for little kids.

They get the job done-protecting my gun rights.I ignore the other
stuff.

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 13, 1:12 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

> Books!http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

>
> Tea Parties are for little kids.

Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:093d8f9e-f302-44c4...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

> Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>

Prove it.

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 13, 6:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>
>    Prove it.

mm

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 13, 6:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>
>    Prove it.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-control-regulations-exclusive.html

[Joe Bruno]

> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-cont...

PS-Fuck you.

[PaxPerPoten]

Yep/...A heavily armed republic can take care of itself. All we need now
is someone to start the war to recapture America.

[PaxPerPoten]

that would be way too bad for his kind., I wonder how many Democrats
would join the Rearm America movement when that would happen? Be a
Helluvba a bunch!

[Joe Bruno]

They are afraid of guns.

[Joe Bruno]

The first ones I want to get rid of are the White Supremacists.
I might even put a few atheists on my hit list.

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:093d8f9e-f302-44c4...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 13, 1:12 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote

>> innews:c4e3d49c-c577-4dd8-aaad-f6344252
> 66...@t36g2000prt.googlegroups.com:

> Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.

He said repeatedly during the campaign, "I am not
going to take your guns away."

Back your shit up, son, or stop talking.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 14, 12:12 am, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com>
wrote:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-control-regulations-exclusive.html

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in

news:20c3bbf6-43a0-4bbb...@d34g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 13, 6:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4-9e7b-5d
> ea415...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> > Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>>
>>    Prove it.
>
> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-contro
> l-regulations-exclusive.html

Nope.

Your own cite fails to even a speech by Obama
"promising more gun control", much less provide the
text of it.

You are really out of your depth here, aren't you....

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in

news:459d6d54-2892-4f0a...@41g2000pry.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 14, 12:12 am, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com>
> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4-9e7b-5d
> ea415...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

A cite that fails to mention anything Obama said
"promising more gun control".

You really don't know much about this topic, do you....

[Joe Bruno]

On Nov 14, 6:15 am, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote innews:20c3bbf6-43a0-4bbb...@d34g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 13, 6:51 pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> >> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote
> >> innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4-9e7b-5d

> > ea415f7...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> > Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>
> >>    Prove it.
>
> >http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-contro
> > l-regulations-exclusive.html
>
>      Nope.
>
>      Your own cite fails to even a speech by Obama
> "promising more gun control", much less provide the
> text of it.
>
>      You are really out of your depth here, aren't you....

It talks about actual gun control, moron.
He's doing it, not talking about it.
YOU ARE STUPID.

[Mitchell Holman]

Joe Bruno <ajt...@att.net> wrote in

news:172f3118-b149-4979...@c16g2000pre.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 14, 6:15�am, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote

>> innews:20c3bbf6-43a0-4bbb-9972-fbd7516c
> 51...@d34g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> > On Nov 13, 6:51�pm, Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Joe Bruno <atjoebru...@gmail.com> wrote
>> >> innews:093d8f9e-f302-44c4-9e7b-5d
>> > ea415f7...@y15g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > Obama has made speeches promising more gun control.
>>
>> >> � �Prove it.
>>
>> >http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/11/obama-s-new-gun-cont
>> >ro
>> > l-regulations-exclusive.html
>>
>> � � �Nope.
>>
>> � � �Your own cite fails to even a speech by Obama
>> "promising more gun control", much less provide the
>> text of it.
>>
>> � � �You are really out of your depth here, aren't you....
>
> It talks about actual gun control, moron.
> He's doing it, not talking about it.

Your claim: "Obama has made speeches promising more gun control."

So show us one of those "speeches". Just one, any one.

[Doc Smartass]

Joe Bruno <atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:fa306cfc-70c3-46f7...@z15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:

> On Nov 13, 12:51 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com>
> wrote:
>> r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote

>> innews:rL-1311111116140001@10.

> They get the job done-protecting my gun rights.I ignore the other
> stuff.

Yeah, well, the rest of us don't think so simply, Butterbars.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

[Doc Smartass]

PaxPerPoten <P...@USA.net> wrote in news:j9q1m2$4jl$2...@dont-email.me:

How'd that last conservative armed insurrection work out for y'all?

Oh yeah--y'all lost.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

[Doc Smartass]

Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in
news:Xns9F9D53734986...@216.196.121.131:

Funny how he missed the link to FactCheck.org debunking the very claim he
repeated.

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

[Doc Smartass]

Mitchell Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote in

news:Xns9F9D5AF59D379...@216.196.121.131:

They should be all over the YouTubes and the Interwebs by now!

--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Aimin' to Misbehave aa # 1939

Kooks! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/

Books! http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/

[Logan Sacket]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 08:59:18 -0600, Mitchell Holman

You can't necessarily nail him down like that, you have to go by his
past history. Voting in Chicago to ban handguns was just one
instance.

Or did he just vote present?

Well, if he would ever take a stand on the hard issues......

[PaxPerPoten]

On 11/14/2011 5:06 PM, Doc Smartass wrote:
> PaxPerPoten<P...@USA.net> wrote in news:j9q1m2$4jl$2...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 11/13/2011 5:57 PM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>
>>> They get the job done-protecting my gun rights.I ignore the other
>>> stuff.
>>
>> Yep/...A heavily armed republic can take care of itself. All we need
>> now is someone to start the war to recapture America.
>
> How'd that last conservative armed insurrection work out for y'all?

The one in the late 1700's? If not... I guess I haven't been doing the
drugs that you do.
>
> Oh yeah--y'all lost.

Lost what. All I ever lost in combat was cherries like you.
>

[PaxPerPoten]

Your kind doesn't think, shithead!
>

[Mitchell Holman]

logan....@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote in news:4ec19fc3.4214640
@news.eternal-september.org:

And signing a bill to allow carrying guns in national parks
is another instance. Wow, how anti-gun can you get....



Obama signs bill allowing loaded guns into national parks
Friday May 22, 2009

http://tinyurl.com/q4oguk

[• R. L. Measures.]

In article <Xns9F9C973AC934...@216.196.121.131>, Doc Smartass

<Fortbr...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

>r...@somis.org (• R. L. Measures.) wrote in

>news:rL-131111...@10.0.1.4:
>
>> In article <Xns9F9BDCE7619F...@216.196.121.131>, Doc

>> Smartass <Fortbr...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>> €€€ the NRA is a terrorist organization?
>>>
>>>Not in the KKK sense, and not in the way Michael Moore claimed in
>>>"Bowling for Columbine"; I should have put the NRA a bit later on in
>>>the rant, speaking to their behavior these days in trying to keep the
>>>paranoid wing of the membership terrified that the Big Gun Ban
>>>Apocalypse is coming any day now.
>>>
>>>These days, their nutjob mouthpiece president is claiming that the
>>>fact that Obama hasn't banned guns means that he's going to ban them
>>>any day now:
>>>
>>>http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-
>>>conspiracy-not-ban-
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/3gl69x4
>>>
>>>...and Obama's givin' machine guns to the Mexican drug lords so he can
>>>take away all the gunnnnz!
>>>
>>>http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/11/nra_thinks_obama_let_
>>>guns_walk_to_mexico_to_crackd.php
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/7okolwx
>>>
>>>I really wish they'd go back to their roots (promoting responsible
>>>ownership and use of firearms) and stop this crap.
>>
>> €€€ agreed
>
>I found one thing about the NRA very interesting: they were active in
>helping blacks defend themselves in segregated towns.

€€€ good for them.

>
>http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960
>
>The year was 1957. Monroe, North Carolina, was a rigidly segregated town
>where all levels of white society and government were dedicated to
>preserving the racial status quo. Blacks who dared to speak out were
>subject to brutal, sadistic violence.
>
>It was common practice for convoys of Ku Klux Klan members to drive
>through black neighborhoods shooting in all directions. A black physician
>who owned a nice brick house on a main road was a frequent target of
>racist anger. In the summer of 1957, a Klan motorcade sent to attack the
>house was met by a disciplined volley of rifle fire from a group of black
>veterans and NRA members led by civil rights activist Robert F. Williams.
>
>Using military-surplus rifles from behind sandbag fortifications, the
>small band of freedom fighters drove off the larger force of Klansmen
>with no casualties reported on either side.
>
>Williams, a former Marine who volunteered to lead the Monroe chapter of
>the NAACP and founded a 60-member, NRA-chartered rifle club, described
>the battle in his 1962 book, "Negroes With Guns," which was reprinted in
>1998 by Wayne State University Press.
>
>According to Williams, the Monroe group owed its survival in the face of
>vicious violence to the fact that they were armed. In several cases,
>police officials who normally ignored or encouraged Klan violence took
>steps to prevent whites from attacking armed blacks. In other cases,
>fanatical racists suddenly turned into cowards when they realized their
>intended victims were armed.

€€ Guffaw

>
>Oddly, it appears that the organized armed blacks of Monroe never shot
>any of their tormentors. The simple existence of guns in the hands of men
>who were willing to use them prevented greater violence.
>
>(more at the link)
>

€€€ tnx for the slice of history.

>See, I could support this NRA. If they'd divest themselves of the right-
>wing paranoia...

--
Richard L. Measures. AG6K, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org

[Logan Sacket]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 21:17:31 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Look at all the guns he sold to the Mexican cartel?
You don't suppose that was an end run to make us think they just
happened to come from the USA do ya ?

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 10, 10:22 pm, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 3:56 pm, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/10/2011 4:07 PM, sully wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 3:05 pm, Dakota<ma...@NOSPAMmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On 11/10/2011 2:43 PM, sully wrote:
>
> > >>> On Nov 9, 12:55 pm, Just Wondering<fmh...@comcast.net>    wrote:
> > >>>> On 11/9/2011 1:16 PM, Davej wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>      wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Nov 9, 8:37 am, Davej<galt...@hotmail.com>      wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>      wrote:

> > >>>>>>>> On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning<jrobe...@terra.com.br>      wrote:

> > >>>>>>>>> [...]

> > >>>>>>>>> Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
> > >>>>>>>>> voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
> > >>>>>>>>> in yesterday's elections.
>

> > >>>>>>>> I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
> > >>>>>>>> beats the Dem agenda.
>

> > >>>>>>> Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.
>
> > >>>>>> I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
>
> > >>>>> Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?
>
> > >>>> Would someone please provide a side-by-side, factual, objective
> > >>>> (stripped of partisan rhetoric and opinions) comparison of the Demo and
> > >>>> Repub agendas?  Not the parties' political platforms, but provable facts
> > >>>> about things elected officials from the two parties have actually done
> > >>>> (or tried to do) in office during the last four years?
>
> > >>> how would you decide what is factual, JW?
>
> > >>> For example, if one of my list of the Democtratic Agenda was
> > >>> to try to fix the Health Care system,  and listed the bill
> > >>> passed,  how they got some Repubs to vote for it, etc,
> > >>> a typical right wing response to that FACT is the following:
>
> > >>> "The Health Care Bill's goal was not about trying to fix a broken
> > >>> health care system, it's goal was to have government take over
> > >>> all of our lives".
>
> > >>> This, of course, is a lie,  but it prompts my question.
>
> > >>> When I try to get facts,  I try to go to journalistic sources,
> > >>> read science,  economic reports from gov't agencies, etc.
>
> > >>> I look at things differently.   I look at what solutions are best
> > >>> for our country (in my opinion) and vote for who would
> > >>> be more likely to accomplish those things.
>
> > >> That's your problem, then. Trusted sources include only Rush Limbaugh,
> > >> Glenn Beck, Fox News Channel, World Net Daily, and the Holy Bible. :)
>
> > > boss tells me I got to get my mind right....
>
> > > I think that's the answer, soak it in stupid.
>
> > These responses to my post are a microcosm of the problem.  Dems,
> > Repubs, left wingers, right wingers, liberals, conservatives, it makes
> > no difference.  Each side castigates the other based on their own biased
> > viewpoints.  It becomes impossible to shovel all the bullshit aside to
> > discover the actual facts.
>
> The only way to find out what a candidate stands for is to look up his
> voting record.
> He will vote for what he believes in.

Money.

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 11, 12:06 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 8:54 pm, Doc Smartass <FortbrickG...@yahoobrick.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote innews:a883bf08-8289-4396...@u10g2000prm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
> > >> Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
> > >> voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
> > >> in yesterday's elections.
>

> > > I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
> > > beats the Dem agenda.
>

> > Just shows you don't know much history. Conservatives have been on the
> > wrong side of every important issue in this country from the Revolution
> > to the Founding to slavery, voting rights, women's rights, gay
> > rights...the whole gamut.
>
> > You are the backwards battery that keeps current from moving--but keep
> > enjoying those rights we got you, you ungrateful shitbird.
>
> > --
>
> Well, I can see that you really don't believe in freedom at all.What
> you want is conformity.Rush Limbaugh says liberals are like that and
> he is obviously right.
> I thank you and Rush thanks you for your confirmation of our
> suspicions.

Is this the same Rush who got out of service because
of a cyst on his heiney?

[Father Haskell]

On Nov 9, 5:09 pm, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 12:16 pm, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 8:37 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > > > On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:

> > > > > > [...]

> > > > > > Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
> > > > > > voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
> > > > > > in yesterday's elections.
>

> > > > > I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
> > > > > beats the Dem agenda.
>

> > > > Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.
>
> > > I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
>
> > Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?
>

> It's alot of empty promises and bullshit.It reveals a group of people
> who are ignorant of economics.Very few of it's promises will ever be
> kept and most Dems have no intention of even trying to keep them.

That pretty much sums up every preacher who's ever lived.

[Mitchell Holman]

logan....@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote in

news:4ec2f1a4...@news.eternal-september.org:

And that makes him "anti-gun"?

[John Baker]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:58:59 -0800 (PST), Joe Bruno
<atjoe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 10, 8:47 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:16:01 -0800 (PST), Davej <galt...@hotmail.com>

>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> On Nov 9, 8:37 am, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno <ajta...@att.net> wrote:
>> >> > > On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning <jrobe...@terra.com.br> wrote:
>> >> > > > [...]
>> >> > > > Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
>> >> > > > voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
>> >> > > > in yesterday's elections.
>>
>> >> > > I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
>> >> > > beats the Dem agenda.
>>
>> >> > Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.
>>
>> >> I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
>>
>> >Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?
>>

>> Why, expecting rich people to pay their fair share, of course. <G>
>
>Those rich people are following the tax law written by Congress.

A Republican Congress that caters to the wealthy and the huge
corporations, yes.

>If you don't like the law, write Congress and tell them.Your notion of
>"fair"
>is a fantasy.

You have no clue what my notion of fair is, Artie, so how can you
possibly know that? If you didn't talk out your arse so much, perhaps
we'd take you a bit more seriously.

[John Baker]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:42:08 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 11, 11:05 am, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> On 11/11/2011 6:58 AM, Joe Bruno wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 10, 8:47 am, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net>  wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 12:16:01 -0800 (PST), Davej<galt...@hotmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Nov 9, 10:48 am, Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>  wrote:
>> >>>> On Nov 9, 8:37 am, Davej<galt...@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>> >>>>> On Nov 9, 9:48 am, Joe Bruno<ajta...@att.net>  wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Nov 9, 7:44 am, John Manning<jrobe...@terra.com.br>  wrote:
>> >>>>>>> [...]
>> >>>>>>> Apparently it's *not* too late. Even rank-and-file Republican
>> >>>>>>> voters have rejected some of the most extreme Republican laws
>> >>>>>>> in yesterday's elections.
>>
>> >>>>>> I don't agree with everything on the GOP agenda, but as a whole, it
>> >>>>>> beats the Dem agenda.
>>
>> >>>>> Yeah, we'll just take your word for it.
>>
>> >>>> I'm not asking anyone to agree with me.
>>
>> >>> Oh yes, the hypothetical evil Dem agenda. Just what is that?
>>
>> >> Why, expecting rich people to pay their fair share, of course.<G>
>>
>> > Those rich people are following the tax law written by Congress.

>> > If you don't like the law, write Congress and tell them.Your notion of
>> > "fair"
>> > is a fantasy.
>>

>> Most people just want taxes to be fair. The trouble is, there are widely
>> divergent notions of what is fair.
>
>You could back up another step, none of us really want to pay taxes.

True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
what have you, we have to pay for them somehow. Unfortunately, the
Republicans want the lower and middle classes to pay most of the bill
while the wealthy get a free ride.

>
>The first time my kids saw real paychecks, needless to say they were
>QUITE disappointed...

So was I, but after I got my first refund check, I didn't mind so
much. <G>

[sully]

On Nov 16, 10:43 am, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 12:42:08 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

Nobody wants to pay for their groceries if they
could get away with it either.

Right wingers are whining now about the student
protests about the high cost of supposedly
public education. Some of these clowns paid
next to nothing for their Cal university educations
and think they 'worked their way through', the
lying bastards.

I pointed out to a couple of these clowns
who I didn't have to feed bananas to (to
get them to pay attention), that the wealthy
corporate businesses, stockholders,
and high paid CEOs are profiting from
a highly educated work force, they should
pay their fair share for it.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/16/2011 11:43 AM, John Baker wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011, sully<suls...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> On Nov 11, 11:05 am, Just Wondering<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Most people just want taxes to be fair. The trouble is, there are widely
>>> divergent notions of what is fair.
>>
>> You could back up another step, none of us really want to pay taxes.
>
> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow. Unfortunately, the
> Republicans want the lower and middle classes to pay most of the bill
> while the wealthy get a free ride.
>

What is the source of your last statement?

[Just Wondering]

On 11/16/2011 12:25 PM, sully wrote:
>
> Right wingers are whining now about the student protests about the high cost of supposedly public education.

1. What student protests are you referring to?
2. Who specifically is whining about those protests?

[sully]

On Nov 16, 12:02 pm, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 12:25 PM, sully wrote:
>
>
>
> > Right wingers are whining now about the student protests about the high cost of supposedly public education.
>
> 1.  What student protests are you referring to?

California state schools and universities over the past couple years,
Cal has 10,000 out at Sproul plaza today.

> 2.  Who specifically is whining about those protests?

I got a good number of right wing friends. but here's Charles
Krauthammer:

These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and
English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is
rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now
marching

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11288/1182215-109-0.stm#ixzz1duQ3Ch7J

[Don Kresch]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
scrawled in blood:

>True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.

Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
require a government at all.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[sully]

On Nov 16, 3:28 pm, Don Kresch <spamca...@spamcatch.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net>
> scrawled in blood:
>
> >True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
> >protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
> >what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>
>         Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
> require a government at all.

sure, the lord will provide.....

[Just Wondering]

On 11/16/2011 3:12 PM, sully wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:02 pm, Just Wondering<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2011 12:25 PM, sully wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Right wingers are whining now about the student protests about the high cost of supposedly public education.
>>
>> 1. What student protests are you referring to?
>
> California state schools and universities over the past couple years,
> Cal has 10,000 out at Sproul plaza today.
>
>
>> 2. Who specifically is whining about those protests?
>
> I got a good number of right wing friends. but here's Charles
> Krauthammer:
>

> Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11288/1182215-109-0.stm#ixzz1duQ3Ch7J

Hiere's the entire article. It does not prove your premise.

> WASHINGTON -- What do you do if you can't run on your record -- on 9 percent unemployment, stagnant growth and ruinous deficits as far as the eye can see? How to run when you are asked whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago and you are compelled to answer no?
>
> Play the outsider. Declare yourself the underdog. Denounce Washington as if the electorate hasn't noticed that you've been in charge of it for nearly three years.
>
> But above all: Find villains.
>
> President Barack Obama first tried finding excuses, blaming America's dismal condition on Japanese supply-chain interruptions, the Arab Spring, European debt and various acts of God.
>
> Didn't work. Sounds plaintive, defensive. Lacks fight, which is what Mr. Obama's base lusts for above all.
>
> Hence Mr. Obama's new strategy: Don't whine, blame. Attack. Indict. Accuse. Who? The rich -- and their Republican protectors -- for wrecking America.
>
> In Mr. Obama's telling, it's the refusal of the rich to "pay their fair share" that jeopardizes Medicare. If millionaires don't pony up, schools will crumble. Oil-drilling tax breaks are costing teachers their jobs. Corporate loopholes will gut medical research.
>
> It's crude. It's Manichaean. And the left loves it. As a matter of math and logic, however, it's ridiculous. Mr. Obama's most coveted tax hike -- an extra 3 to 4.6 percent for millionaires and billionaires (weirdly defined as individuals making over $200,000) -- would have reduced last year's deficit from $1.29 trillion to $1.21 trillion. Nearly a rounding error. The oil-drilling breaks cover less than half a day's federal spending. You could collect Mr. Obama's favorite tax loophole -- depreciation for corporate jets -- for 100 years and it wouldn't cover one month of Medicare, whose insolvency is a function of increased longevity, expensive new technology and wasteful defensive medicine caused by an insane malpractice system.
>
> After three years, Mr. Obama's self-proclaimed transformative social policies have yielded a desperately weak economy. What to do? Take the low road: Plutocrats are bleeding the country and I shall rescue you from them.
>
> Problem is, this kind of populist demagoguery is more than intellectually dishonest. It's dangerous. Mr. Obama is opening a Pandora's box. Popular resentment, easily stoked, is less easily controlled, especially when the basest of instincts are granted legitimacy by the nation's leader.
>
> Exhibit A. On Tuesday, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed punitive legislation over China's currency. If not stopped by House Speaker John Boehner, it might have led to a trade war -- a 21st-century Smoot-Hawley. Mr. Obama knows this. He has shown no appetite for a reckless tariff war. But he set the tone. Once you start hunting for villains, they can be found anywhere, particularly if they are conveniently foreign.
>
> Exhibit B. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin rails against Bank of America for announcing a $5 a month debit card fee. Mr. Obama echoes the opprobrium with fine denunciations of banks and their hidden fees -- except that this $5 fee is not hidden. It's perfectly transparent.
>
> Yet here is a leading Democratic senator advocating a run on a major (and troubled) bank -- after two presidents and two Congresses sunk billions of taxpayer dollars to save failing banks. Not because they were deserving or virtuous but because they are necessary. Without banks, there is no lending. Without lending, there is no business. Without business, there are no jobs.
>
> Exhibit C. To the villainy-of-the-rich theme emanating from Washington, a child is born: Occupy Wall Street. Starbucks-sipping, Levi's-clad, iPhone-clutching protesters denounce corporate America even as they weep for Steve Jobs, corporate titan, billionaire eight times over.
>
> These indignant indolents saddled with their $50,000 student loans and English degrees have decided that their lack of gainful employment is rooted in the malice of the millionaires on whose homes they are now marching -- to the applause of Democrats suffering acute tea party envy and now salivating at the energy these big-government anarchists will presumably give their cause.
>
> Except that the real tea party actually had a program -- less government, less regulation, less taxation, less debt. What's the Occupy Wall Street program? Eat the rich.
>
> And then what? Haven't gotten that far.
>
> No postprandial plans. But no matter. After all, this is not about programs or policies. This is about scapegoating, a failed administration trying to save itself by blaming our troubles -- and its failures -- on class enemies, turning general discontent into rage against a malign few.
>
> From the Senate to the streets, it's working. Mr. Obama is too intelligent not to know what he started. But so long as it gives him a shot at re-election, he shows no sign of caring.
>
> Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11288/1182215-109-0.stm#ixzz1dv52RN5W

[Just Wondering]

On 11/16/2011 4:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net>
> scrawled in blood:
>
>
>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>
> Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
> require a government at all.
>

Please explain how a nation can have a strong national defense without
having any government.

[Don Kresch]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:57:11 -0700, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:

Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
logically requires a government.

IOW: I exposed your begged question.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/16/2011 6:35 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:57:11 -0700, Just Wondering
> <fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:
>
>> On 11/16/2011 4:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net>
>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>
>>>
>>>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>>>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>>>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>>>
>>> Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
>>> require a government at all.
>>
>> Please explain how a nation can have a strong national defense without
>> having any government.
>
> Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
> logically requires a government.

Can you provide a single example in the entire history of the human
species where any nation has NOT provided for its national defense,
without the involvement of government?

You're avoiding my question, so I'll approach it another way. You're the
one who claims no government is required to provide a strong national
defense. For the sake of argument, I'll go along with you. No
government? That's great! Now, just how do we as a nation defend
ourselves?

Now, unlike you, I'll take a stab at YOUR question.
The short answer to your question is, any national defense will exist
only by people working collectively, either through some form of
agreement or by force. Any such collective effort is by definition some
form of government.

Suppose you and I are the only people in our little nation. There's a
neighboring country, with four people, who decide to attack us. We have
options:
1. We mutually agree defend ourselves. We've acted through a
government - a democracy.
2. OR, one of us forces the other to defend us. We've just acted
through a government - a dictatorship.
3. OR, we act completely independently of each other. That's a lack of
government - an anarchy. In a war, we're totally screwed.

As a practical matter, any society will not last as an anarchy. Either
through cooperation or force, some form of government will arise. It
will arise either by a mutual compact or by force. Either way, anarchy
will give way to government.

[sully]

On Nov 17, 10:55 am, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 6:35 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:57:11 -0700, Just Wondering
> > <fmh...@comcast.net>  scrawled in blood:
>
> >> On 11/16/2011 4:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net>
> >>> scrawled in blood:
>
> >>>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
> >>>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
> >>>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>
> >>>    Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
> >>> require a government at all.
>
> >> Please explain how a nation can have a strong national defense without
> >> having any government.
>
> >    Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
> > logically requires a government.
>
> Can you provide a single example in the entire history of the human
> species where any nation has NOT provided for its national defense,
> without the involvement of government?
>
> You're avoiding my question, so I'll approach it another way. You're the
> one who claims no government is required to provide a strong national
> defense.  For the sake of argument, I'll go along with you.  No
> government?  That's great!  Now, just how do we as a nation defend
> ourselves?

good luck with this JW.

[Mulligan]

On Nov 17, 1:55 pm, Just Wondering <fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 11/16/2011 6:35 PM, Don Kresch wrote:

> Can you provide a single example in the entire history of the human
> species where any nation has NOT provided for its national defense,
> without the involvement of government?

You do not have to worry about defense.

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

The Swiss Confederation has a long history of neutrality—it has not
been in a state of war internationally since 1815

In nominal terms, Switzerland is one of the richest countries in the
world by per capita gross domestic product, with a nominal per capita
GDP of $75,835.[4] In 2010, Switzerland had the highest wealth per
adult of any country in the world (with $372,692 for each person).[7]
Switzerland also has one of the world's largest account balances as a
percentage of GDP. Zurich and Geneva have respectively been ranked as
the cities with the second and third highest quality of life in the
world

[Mulligan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Economy

The gross domestic product (GDP) on a purchasing power parity basis
is $5.028 billion,[25] or $141,100 per person which in the second
highest in the world.

[Mulligan]

On Nov 17, 3:00 pm, Mulligan <t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Security_and_defense

The Liechtenstein National Police is responsible for keeping order
within the country. It consists of 87 field officers and 38 civilian
staff totaling 125 employes. All officers are equipped with small
arms. The country has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
Liechtenstein's prison holds few, if any, inmates, and those with
sentences over two years are transferred to Austrian jurisdiction. The
Liechtenstein National Police maintains a trilateral treaty with
Austria and Switzerland that enables close cross-border cooperation
among the police forces of the three countries.[43]

Liechtenstein follows a policy of neutrality and is one of few
countries in the world that maintains no military. The army was
abolished soon after the Austro-Prussian War in which Liechtenstein
fielded an army of 80 men, although they were not involved in any
fighting. The demise of the German Confederation in that war freed
Liechtenstein from its international obligation to maintain an army,
and parliament seized this opportunity and refused to provide funding
for one. The Prince objected, as such a move would leave the country
defenseless, but relented on 12 February 1868 and disbanded the force.
The last soldier to serve under the colours of Liechtenstein died in
1939 at age 95

[Mulligan]

> 1939 at age 95- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

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

The country has a highly developed economy, with the world's highest
GDP (nominal) per capita according to the IMF.

[Mulligan]

> GDP (nominal) per capita according to the IMF.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

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

It has a current strength of approximately 450 professional soldiers,
340 enlisted recruits and 100 civilians, and a total budget of $369
million, or 0.9% of GDP.

[Just Wondering]

The reason Switzerland has kept out of wars is only partially because of
its "neutrality." For example, Germany did not attack Switzerland in
WWI, not because of Swiss neutrality, but because Germany thought it was
in its own best (primarily financial) interest not to attack.

Nevertheless, Switzerland's government maintains armed forces and has
spent money to provide for the national defense.

I ask again, can you provide a single example in the entire history of

[Just Wondering]

On 11/17/2011 1:05 PM, Mulligan wrote:
> On Nov 17, 3:00 pm, Mulligan<t2judgm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 1:55 pm, Just Wondering<fmh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2011 6:35 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>> Can you provide a single example in the entire history of the human
>>> species where any nation has NOT provided for its national defense,
>>> without the involvement of government?
>>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liechtenstein#Security_and_defense
>
> The Liechtenstein National Police is responsible for keeping order
> within the country. It consists of 87 field officers and 38 civilian
> staff totaling 125 employes. All officers are equipped with small
> arms. The country has one of the world's lowest crime rates.
> Liechtenstein's prison holds few, if any, inmates, and those with
> sentences over two years are transferred to Austrian jurisdiction. The
> Liechtenstein National Police maintains a trilateral treaty with
> Austria and Switzerland that enables close cross-border cooperation
> among the police forces of the three countries.[43]
>
> Liechtenstein follows a policy of neutrality and is one of few
> countries in the world that maintains no military.

http://christopher-eger.suite101.com/military-history-of-liechtenstein-a16157

The country is about the size of Washington DC and has a population of
34,000. Alois, the current Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein attended
the the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst in the United Kingdom. He
served in the Coldstream Guards in Hong Kong and London. The only armed
force in is its Landespolizei (National Police). ... This unit is
equipped with body armor and automatic weapons including Walther PP
handguns, Heckler and Koch MP5s, and Swiss SiG carbines. This small
group, part of the 61-man National Police, plus 19-auxillary police and
eight municipal constables constitute the whole of the country's defense.

Thankfully, in an emergency all Liechtensteiners under the age of 60 are
liable to military service, there are over 850 boyscouts (Pfadfinders)
now, and the disbanded army's old weapons still hang in the halls at
Vaduz Castle.

So even tiny Liechtenstein provides for its national defense through the
involvement of government.

I repeat, can you provide a single example in the entire history of the

[Logan Sacket]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:25:46 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Isn't that called wages?

[Logan Sacket]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 20:22:35 -0600, Mitchell Holman

Now why would you do something like that on such a scale unless you
wanted to "prove that drug cartel arms came from American dealers?

[sully]

On Nov 17, 2:31 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:25:46 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:

snip

> >I pointed out to a couple of these clowns
> >who I didn't have to feed bananas to (to
> >get them to pay attention), that the wealthy
> >corporate businesses, stockholders,
> >and high paid CEOs are profiting from
> >a highly educated work force, they should
> >pay their fair share for it.
>
> Isn't that called wages?

Partially. Say you and I go to work for an
engineering firm, you're an engineer and I'm
a janitor. I have a little education but not much,
you have an ME. When the engineering
company bills its' client for engineering work,
I am included as part of the overhead, perhaps
not even billed directly, but you are being billed
at ~ $200/hr. You are not getting paid $200/hr,
no you're getting paid a salary which likely breaks
down to about $45/hr. Some of the billable
gets charged to overhead costs, materials, etc,
but some goes into company profit.

The company is making a LOT more money out
of you than me. I'm a necessary cost for the
company, getting maybe $15/hr, but the company
doesn't bill a profit off me, just the overhead cost.

Surprising how few ppl understand this, that
a company makes TONS more money of very
educated work than uneducated work.

It is true that you are getting well compensated,
and it's also true that the company SHOULD
profit off of you, more power to them. But they
are getting a relatively free ride to not have to
pay for the cost of the engineering education
that they profit from.

This applies in other areas besides education,
transportation, communications, etc.

When a company sets up shop downtown,
they didn't hafe to build the road/rail/airport/
communication infrastructure that they could
use, the public set that up for them.

When companies pay property taxes, pay
taxes on income, dividends, etc, this is
the sort of stuff they are paying for, an
infrastructure they can profit handsomely
from.

I thought you understood this already.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:55:52 -0700, Just Wondering

<fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:

>On 11/16/2011 6:35 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:57:11 -0700, Just Wondering
>> <fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2011 4:28 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker<nu...@bizniz.net>
>>>> scrawled in blood:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>>>>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>>>>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>>>>
>>>> Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
>>>> require a government at all.
>>>
>>> Please explain how a nation can have a strong national defense without
>>> having any government.
>>
>> Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
>> logically requires a government.
>
>Can

Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
logically requires a government.

Please STOP begging the question. Empiricism is not valid
here. Whining about how one country can take over another is a red
herring. Either show the logical connection or shut the fuck up.

[Just Wondering]

On 11/17/2011 4:42 PM, Don Kresch wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:55:52 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>>>>>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>>>>>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>>>>> Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
>>>>> require a government at all.
>>>>

> Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
> logically requires a government.
>
> Please STOP begging the question.
>

"John Baker" started this by claiming "But most of us realize that if we

want police and fire protection, strong national defense, decent roads,
clean water and what have you, we have to pay for them somehow. Yet
none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those require a government

at all." So this thread began with a claim that a strong national
defense does not require a government at all. It's not begging the
question to ask for an explanation of how this is possible. When
challenged the proponent of an idea should be prepared to support it.
"John Baker" never did. It appears you support his proposition, but you
are no more prepare than he is to support it with a rational explanation
for Baker's proposition.

[Don Kresch]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:34:07 -0700, Just Wondering
<fmh...@comcast.net> scrawled in blood:

>On 11/17/2011 4:42 PM, Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:55:52 -0700, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:43:09 -0500, John Baker wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True, we don't. But most of us realize that if we want police and fire
>>>>>>> protection, strong national defense, decent roads, clean water and
>>>>>>> what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.
>>>>>> Yet none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those
>>>>>> require a government at all.
>>>>>
>> Please explain how national defense, i.e. a military,
>> logically requires a government.
>>
>> Please STOP begging the question.
>>
>"John Baker" started this by claiming "But most of us realize that if we
>want police and fire protection, strong national defense, decent roads,
>clean water and what have you, we have to pay for them somehow.

Yes, that's what he said.

>Yet
>none of those require taxes. In fact, none of those require a government
>at all."

That's what I said, not John.

> So this thread began with a claim that a strong national
>defense does not require a government at all.

No, it did not. Read the quote attributions properly.

>It's not begging the
>question to ask for an explanation of how this is possible.

It's begging the question to presume that only a government
can do it.

[Logan Sacket]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:10 -0800 (PST), sully <suls...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Let me summarize.
In my company, the overhead is a fixed dollar amount whether or not I
am a technician or a PHD. The hourly rate that I cost (my services)
is certainly higher than the technician. However, my skill set is
much greater. OK so far?

As I understand it, you are comparing the income from me vs. the
techincian as money received from the services of both. Lets say
(after overhead is taken out) $50 income for the tech and $100 for me.
The return is the same percentage assuming that the tech makes 1/2 of
what I make. Now, lets say it took three technicians to accomplish
the same thing the PHD does. $150 (techs) vs. $100 for me.
For this exercise, we can say that the techs three techs performed as
well as one PHD, and the best way for them get the job done is to have
me do it.

So, basically, I am paid for my quaifications and experience. My
initial cost of a higher education was my choice, which because of my
improved skill set, I have paid for that schooling time and time
again.

A company that is managed correctly ( you have to make a big
assumption here), uses its resources intelligently to do the job they
need done

My point is, that for the work performed, the company needs to make a
certain percentage of profit from those services to operate. The
percentage of profit remains relatively the same.

Does this make sense?

[sully]

On Nov 18, 3:38 pm, logan.sac...@gmail.com (Logan Sacket) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:40:10 -0800 (PST), sully <sulsn...@yahoo.com>

Yes, and there a lot of ways this gets billed,
depending upon the product (our model being
engineering or scientific work, not necessarily
manufacturing a widget).

I'm using the billable hours model to demonstrate
how a company will make a lot more money off of
an educated person than a less educated person
(given each are qualified at their level of course).

The other advantage the company gains is in
hiring/recruitment. The school system gives them
a base level, reasonable set of criteria to choose
productive employees.

Yes, we have a choice to invest in our education
both in time and money, it does pay off for
ourselves, but employers owe a share as well.

Industries understand this, I didn't make this up!

Silicon Valley puts tons of money into the SF
bay area universities, both in infrastructure and
curriculum. The growth in private technical universities
(DeVry and such) is testimony to how industry
values education. My son's ex-GF graduated
from there into a great job as a med tech after
3 yrs of college (year round!) at De Vry, fully
scholarshipped tuition (high)about 1/2 from
industry grant and rest from govt sources.

They understand that education is an essential
part of their profitability.

[Just Wondering]

WHAT question is it begging? I'm asking, therefore the question is,
how would a strong national defense be achieved without any government
involvement whatsoever? I don't think it IS possible. If I'm wrong,
prove it.

[Don Kresch]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 04:25:15 -0700, Just Wondering

THAT ONLY A GOVERNMENT CAN PROVIDE SUCH THINGS.

[sully]

Yes, JW, it is possible if you just let God or Allah or whoever
take care of it.

trust in God enough, you don't need government for
anything.

[Just Wondering]

That's not a question, that's a proposition/hypothesis. And it's not
even an accurate statement of the proposition at issue, which is whether
or not national defense logically requires a government. It could
easily be disproved simply be showing an example of a nation providing
for its national defense without any governmental involvement. That's
all I asked for - evidence to test the proposition. I'm still waiting
for an answer.

[Just Wondering]

How did that work for Jesus? Oh, yeah, the Roman government crucified
Him. Can you provide a single example in the entire history of the
world where that has actually worked for a nation? And your proposition
contains a logical fallacy. Even if everyone in a nation trusted God
enough, their national defense would still be provided through
government - a theocracy with God as the supreme leader is a government.

[sully]

I think I needed an <irony></irony> tag on my post. You must know
by now that I'm an atheist.