Dinesh D'Souza

[Quadibloc]

Just read this:

https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/

Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?

John Savard

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:3214b3d1-5d9c-466c-8788-
464c82...@googlegroups.com:

> Just read this:
>
> https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
>
> Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?
>

I assume you're referring to the guy that fun Snopes as a liberal
propaganda rag?

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:54:46 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:3214b3d1-5d9c-466c-8788-
> 464c82...@googlegroups.com:

> > Just read this:

> > https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/

> > Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?

> I assume you're referring to the guy that fun Snopes as a liberal
> propaganda rag?

Maybe Snopes _is_ a liberal propaganda rag, but I don't think they get their
*facts* wrong. And facts like that used to totally destroy a person's
reputation. Is the world failing to work properly these days?

Oh, wait. Trump is President.

John Savard

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:a7cdb5a6-8da0-4707...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:54:46 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:3214b3d1-5d9c-466c-8788- 464c82...@googlegroups.com:
>
>> > Just read this:
>
>> > https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
>
>> > Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?
>
>> I assume you're referring to the guy that fun Snopes as a
>> liberal propaganda rag?
>
> Maybe Snopes _is_ a liberal propaganda rag,

There's no maybe to it.

> but I don't think

Obviously.

> they get their *facts* wrong.

They offer no facts on political issues. Their only "fact checker"
on political stories is a liberal popagagandist. This is beyond
dispute. You not being aware of this says far more about you than
it does about them.

[Lynn McGuire]

Thanks goodness Trump is President. I predict that time will show him
to be a great leader of our great nation, the USA.

Lynn

[D B Davis]

Because he's a troll?
(BTW, the identity of "that guy", as you see it, is somewhat
ambiguous to me. Fortunately my remark's apropos for all parties. ;0) )

Thank you,

--
Don

[J. Clarke]

I voted for every Republican since Nixon. Except Trump. I couldn't
force myself to vote for Hillary and Trump was clearly a buffoon, so I
didn't vote for either of them.

If you think he's going to prove himself a great leader, I have a nice
bridge . . .

It's a year in, North Korea has become a nuclear power, Obamacare is
still the law of the land, the new tax code is going to just be more
robbing Peter to pay Paul, the Chinese are still eating our lunch, and
now it looks like the idiot press and the idiot liberals in their race
to destroy him are going to bring back the Cold War with Russia. Oh,
and no illegals to speak of have been sent home but it does look like
he's going out of his way to punish the victims (Obama really should
have come up with a better name for them that "the Dreamers") of their
parents' crime.

Great leader? Only if he manages to establish a dictatorship and
force people to call him that and he's not bright enough to pull that
off.

[Dimensional Traveler]

The Germans predicted the same of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.

And Hitler was smarter.


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 4:24:14 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> It's a year in, North Korea has become a nuclear power,

I don't think that Obama would be more effective in preventing that than Trump has been.

I think that even giving the Devil his due is conducive to clear thinking.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 3:42:15 PM UTC-7, D B Davis wrote:

> (BTW, the identity of "that guy", as you see it, is somewhat
> ambiguous to me.

I meant Dinesh D'Souza.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

I think that Lynn will prove to be less wrong than that. Trump isn't going to
invade Poland, Canada, or Mexico to make America greater in size to give its
people more land to sustain themselves. I worry that he might start World War
III, all right, but not by starting it directly himself; instead, by encouraging
Putin to think that he can get away with starting it.

Say by invading Estonia.

John Savard

[Moriarty]

Never heard of him before this thread. However, I will say that anyone who can assert that a 14 year old Hungarian Jew was a member of the SS is a particularly special combination of stupid and malevolent.

-Moriaty

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 6:36:29 PM UTC-7, Moriarty wrote:

> Never heard of him before this thread. However, I will say that anyone who can
> assert that a 14 year old Hungarian Jew was a member of the SS is a particularly
> special combination of stupid and malevolent.

In fairness: Dinesh D'Souza wasn't responsible for that particular canard, from
the page I cited; he instead made somewhat milder outrageous claims in the same
general vein.

John Savard

[Lynn McGuire]

I maintain Hillary would have us swapping nukes with somebody. Maybe
even her buddy Putin ...

Lynn

[J. Clarke]

It would be difficult for him not to be.

[J. Clarke]

I don't think anybody would have been but Trump is supposed to Make
America Great Again.

Note, the best I can say for Obama is that he did not totally
embarrass the black race--he was at best an average president. I am
not a fan of him, or of Hillary Clinton, or of Bernie Sanders, or, for
that matter of _anybody_ currenly holding elected office or who
recentaly ran for such office. They're all scoundrels and/or idiots
and if the Earth opened up and swallowed the lot the world would be a
better place.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jdud3d14d5j4vt4ue...@4ax.com:

North Korea was already a nuclear power, as a direct result of
Obmama playing with imself for eight years. But, for the first time
*ever*, it's now China's problem, not ours.

> Obamacare is still the law of the land,

The President *can't* repeal a law, only Congress can. Unless
you're proposing some sort of military coup.

> the new tax code is
> going to just be more robbing Peter to pay Paul,

As opposed to Obama's trillions in deficit spending?

> the Chinese are
> still eating our lunch,

The Chinese were on the ropes on trade policy with one phone call,
that Trump didn't even make.

> and now it looks like the idiot press
> and the idiot liberals in their race to destroy him are going to
> bring back the Cold War with Russia.

The Cold War with Russia was already back full swing for the same
reason North Korea is a nuclear power, namely, Obama playing with
himself for eight years.

> Oh, and no illegals to
> speak of have been sent home

There are fewer and fewer to send home, due to the rather
substantial drop in how mnay are sneaking across the border in the
first place.

> but it does look like he's going
> out of his way to punish the victims (Obama really should have
> come up with a better name for them that "the Dreamers") of
> their parents' crime.

Yes, he's going to discontinue Obama's usurpation of Congress'
constitutional authority, and place responsibility for the progrma
direcly where it belongs - with Congress.

>
> Great leader? Only if he manages to establish a dictatorship
> and force people to call him that and he's not bright enough to
> pull that off.
>

You forgot to complain about keeping the campaign promise that
*every* President has made for the last several decades, and
recognizing Jeruselem as the capital of Israel. (Which is simple
recoginition that what we've been doing - and doing and doing and
doing - for the last 50 yeas hasn't accomplished *anything*, so
meybe it's time to try something different.) It will be
hysterically funny if his real legacy is a peace plan for the
Middle East that actually accompolishes something Unexpected, but
funny as hell.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f591df89-98c9-4a1b...@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 4:24:14 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke
> wrote:
>
>> It's a year in, North Korea has become a nuclear power,
>
> I don't think that Obama would be more effective in preventing
> that than Trump has been.

ITYM Clinton, and she would have sold them more enriched uranium.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p176nd$80m$1...@dont-email.me:

That would have been the only way to distract the public from the
scandals.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:p171rr$gvs$1...@dont-email.me:

Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't have
*anything* legitimate to complain about. That he is, obviously, in
your opinion, doing an excellent job.

Very generous of you, given how much you dislike him.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 12/17/2017 6:05 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
> news:p171rr$gvs$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 12/17/2017 2:23 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 12/17/2017 3:59 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:54:46 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
>>>> Jibini wrote:
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>> news:3214b3d1-5d9c-466c-8788- 464c82...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>>> Just read this:
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
>>>>
>>>>>> Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?
>>>>
>>>>> I assume you're referring to the guy that fun Snopes as a
>>>>> liberal propaganda rag?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe Snopes _is_ a liberal propaganda rag, but I don't think
>>>> they get their
>>>> *facts* wrong. And facts like that used to totally destroy a
>>>> person's reputation. Is the world failing to work properly
>>>> these days?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, wait. Trump is President.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>>

>>> Thanks goodness Trump is President.  I predict that time will

>>> show him to be a great leader of our great nation, the USA.
>>>
>> The Germans predicted the same of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
>>
>> And Hitler was smarter.
>>
> Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't have
> *anything* legitimate to complain about. That he is, obviously, in
> your opinion, doing an excellent job.
>

He's doing a shit job and the worst part is that the people who voted
for him refuse to see how much he's screwing them over. And that's a
hell of a verbal pretzel even for you Terry, claiming that comparing
Trump to Hitler is a compliment.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:p178lj$iqj$1...@dont-email.me:

You object to the stock market being the highest it's ever been,
unemployement the lowest in a long, long time, illegal immigration
dropping in ways no one could have reasonably hoped for?

Do you really hate the US that much? I supposed so.

> and the worst part is that the people who
> voted for him refuse to see how much he's screwing them over.
> And that's a hell of a verbal pretzel even for you Terry,
> claiming that comparing Trump to Hitler is a compliment.
>

And yet, you can't actually offer *anything* else to criticize him.

[Dimensional Traveler]

>>>>> Thanks goodness Trump is President.  I predict that time

>>>>> will show him to be a great leader of our great nation, the
>>>>> USA.
>>>>>
>>>> The Germans predicted the same of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
>>>>
>>>> And Hitler was smarter.
>>>>
>>> Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't
>>> have *anything* legitimate to complain about. That he is,
>>> obviously, in your opinion, doing an excellent job.
>>>
>> He's doing a shit job
>
> You object to the stock market being the highest it's ever been,
> unemployement the lowest in a long, long time, illegal immigration
> dropping in ways no one could have reasonably hoped for?
>

None of which he is in any way responsible for. (Which your "no one
could have reasonably hoped for" indicates you know.)

> Do you really hate the US that much? I supposed so.
>

My country, right or wrong. When wrong to be made right, when right to
be kept right.

>> and the worst part is that the people who
>> voted for him refuse to see how much he's screwing them over.
>> And that's a hell of a verbal pretzel even for you Terry,
>> claiming that comparing Trump to Hitler is a compliment.
>>
> And yet, you can't actually offer *anything* else to criticize him.
>

How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of law? The
"rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he backs?

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 7:03:36 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:jdud3d14d5j4vt4ue...@4ax.com:

> > Obamacare is still the law of the land,

> The President *can't* repeal a law, only Congress can. Unless
> you're proposing some sort of military coup.

But the Republicans control both houses of Congress! So why should that make any difference?

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 7:06:00 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:

> Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't have
> *anything* legitimate to complain about.

Putin invaded Georgia because he claimed the minority ethnic Russians there were
being persecuted.

Putin enacted laws to persecute homosexuals in Russia.

I think comparing Trump to Mussolini is probably more appropriate.

John Savard

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in

news:p17ea9$bn8$1...@dont-email.me:

Keep telling yourself that.

>
>> Do you really hate the US that much? I supposed so.
>>
> My country, right or wrong. When wrong to be made right, when
> right to be kept right.

And yet, here you are, objecting to the increasingly rosy future.

>
>>> and the worst part is that the people who
>>> voted for him refuse to see how much he's screwing them over.
>>> And that's a hell of a verbal pretzel even for you Terry,
>>> claiming that comparing Trump to Hitler is a compliment.
>>>
>> And yet, you can't actually offer *anything* else to criticize
>> him.
>>
> How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of law?

You never complained about any of Obama's usurpation of the
constitutional authority of Congress.

> The "rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he backs?
>

The tax plan in front of Congress at this moment was crafted by
Congress, not Trump.

You are increasingly irrational in your blind hatred. Which isn't
surprsing. You're starting to remind me of the Flat Earther
conspiracy theorists, who have arrived at the point where the only
way they can maintain their belief in the conspriacy is if every
other Flat Earther is part of it. Literally _everyone_ on the
planet is part of it.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:7a639c39-4919-497b...@googlegroups.com:

Because you're stupid enough to think that Trump is a) a Republican,
and b) someone in control of 535 members of Congress through, I
presume, some sort of mind control device or something.

If you don't have a fucking clue how the US government works - and
you don't, and never have, and are incapabler of ever learning -
perhaps you should refrain from proving how stupid and clueless you
are by not talkin about it.

But you won't.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:f2b1fd3e-3abe-40be...@googlegroups.com:

> I think

There is considerable evidence to the contrary.

[Chris Buckley]

On 2017-12-18, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of law? The
> "rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he backs?

I'm curious: can you point me to a balanced analysis that shows the 1%
will be paying a smaller percentage of the total taxes after the plan
than they do now (compared to the 99%)?

All the analyses and raw data I've seen say the 1% will be paying a
greater percentage of the taxes - my local paper (_Washington Post_)
completely ignores that aspect, which suggests that statement is true.

(Note: I'm not a fan of Trump and did not and would not ever vote for
him, but all these casual unsupported jibes are annoying.)

Chris

[J. Clarke]

I suspect that the big complaint is that he's "giving money" to those
EEEEEEVVVVVVVIIIIIIIILLLLLLLL corporations that do absolutely nothing
worthwhile and that we would be better off without.

Only in liberal speak is reducing the amount that you are taking
"giving".

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Chris Buckley <al...@sabir.com> wrote in
news:slrnp3ehi...@video.sabir.com:

> On 2017-12-18, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of
>> law? The "rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he
>> backs?
>
> I'm curious: can you point me to a balanced analysis that shows
> the 1% will be paying a smaller percentage of the total taxes
> after the plan than they do now (compared to the 99%)?
>
> All the analyses and raw data I've seen say the 1% will be
> paying a greater percentage of the taxes - my local paper
> (_Washington Post_) completely ignores that aspect, which
> suggests that statement is true.

The other thing you won't see much press on is the tax reduction on
"pass through businesses," which account for something like 99% of
all US corporations, and half the economy. (according to the NFIB,
who have endorces the bill, anyway).

>
> (Note: I'm not a fan of Trump and did not and would not ever
> vote for him, but all these casual unsupported jibes are
> annoying.)
>

It's all they have. If they want to post *supported* allegations,
they'll have to talk about the record stock market, the low
unemployment, the lowest illegal immigration in nearly 17 years
(Even liberal propaganda rag Politicfact had to admit that was
true), and all the other things they don't like to talk about.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:epje3dhjfcq3kkkis...@4ax.com:

They don't give a shit about taxation, or anybody's money, in any
direction. At this point, the only conscious awareness these people
have is their blind, irrational hatred of Trump. If Trump publicly
announced that he was ordering ICE to let in anybody who wants to
come to the US in, with no documentation whatsoever, that he was
implement a 150% tax on all people with an in the top 5%, that
having religious belief would hereafter be a capital crime, except
the worship of Hillary Clinton as the Creator Of The Universe, and
he, himself, would be committing suicide on live television, most
liberals woul suddenly revserse their position on all those issues.

They *can't* help themselves.

[David Johnston]

On 2017-12-17 9:36 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
> On 2017-12-18, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of law? The
>> "rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he backs?
>
> I'm curious: can you point me to a balanced analysis that shows the 1%
> will be paying a smaller percentage of the total taxes after the plan
> than they do now (compared to the 99%)?
>

I'm curious. Has it occurred to you that this is a tax cut primarily
for corporations?

[Ninapenda Jibini]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p17r4d$72j$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

I'm curious. Has it occured to you uthat the overwhelming majority of
corporations are pass through corporations, reprsenting half the GDP,
who will benefit greatly from this bill? You know, the corporations
that are mostly family owned, and are the backbone of the economy?

[Ninapenda Jibini]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:p17r4d$72j$1...@gioia.aioe.org:

Also, I note you didn't answer his question. So the answer is, no,
obviously, you can't. Or you can, but it says the exact opposite of
what you wish to be true.

[J. Clarke]

Why should there not be a tax cut for corporations? The tax on
corporations gets passed to the consumer. Ultimately I end up paying
it just like I pay income tax and sales tax. It's a dishonest tax
though because it's hidden away where most people aren't even aware
that they're paying it.

Oh, I know, because corporations make "obscene profits", defined as
any amount in excess of 0.

[Juho Julkunen]

In article <fnjf3ddolu4o7ktge...@4ax.com>, jclarke.873638
@gmail.com says...

>
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:35:39 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >I'm curious. Has it occurred to you that this is a tax cut primarily
> >for corporations?
>
> Why should there not be a tax cut for corporations? The tax on
> corporations gets passed to the consumer.

Theoretically, corporate tax rate should be zero, as it is ultimately
paid by some actual person, either as higher prices, lower salaries, or
lower dividends.

In the slightly messier real world corporate tax rate should be higher
than zero, to prevent people from dodging their taxes by incorporating.

What the actual rate should be is left as an exercise for the reader.

--
Juho Julkunen

[Kevrob]

John, the US has a president independently elected from the
Congress. It isn't a "responsible government" system where
a Prime Minister and Cabinet stay in power only as long as
they have the confidence of a parliamentary majority. The
President has often been unable to bring members of his own party
in line, and the Congressional party has often had to deal with
a POTUS who cuts deals "across the aisle."

The US political primary system effectively turns parties,
which were private organizations, into quasi-state actors,
in that a party cannot keep an outsider from attempting to
be nominated, and even sometimes succeeding at that.

Many of the "never Trump" GOPers in 2016 pointed out the
Cheetoh Who Walks Like A Man had, shall we say, fluid
political associations. He'd cut a campaign contribution
check to whoever he thought he might have to deal with in
the course of running his businesses. The NTs were very
afraid that, besides the question of whether he had the
right principles or not, he could have just been adopting
political positions without any regard for principle, and
might sell the Republicans out on an issue to serve some
other purpose.

I expect that the dynamic involves placating the conservative base
with red meat issues (abortion, immigration) because Trump can't
afford to be slapped with the RINO tag. Once that happens the House
GOP would see him as fair game, and might countenance an impeachment,
or better yet, removal on 25th Amendment grounds. That's never happened,
aside from the temporary shift of power to the VP when a President
is undergoing surgery that puts him under anesthesia. Everyone
deciding Trump is bat-shit crazy and invoking it would be novel,
but constitutional.

Kevin R

[Jack Bohn]

Kevrob wrote:

> The US political primary system effectively turns parties,
> which were private organizations, into quasi-state actors,
> in that a party cannot keep an outsider from attempting to
> be nominated, and even sometimes succeeding at that.

Well, one party can't...

--
-Jack

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:0b1fa6fd-3428-4c5b...@googlegroups.com:

Trump has been registered as both Democrat and Republican.

The reason he ran as a Republican was that the only candidate he
could beat (or even make a decent showing against - I'm still
fairly certain he didn't actually *want* to win) was Hillary
Clinton, who was running as a Democrat. If Hillary had run as a
Republican, Trump would have run as a Democrat.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Kevrob]

Sanders wasn't even a registered Democrat, but amassed a considerable
delegate count. The ur-example is the association of David Duke
in Louisiana with the Republicans. The main-line GOPers could
declare him "not a real Republican" all they wanted, once he won
a first round of their primary as a self-designated Republican,
in the eyes of the state elections bureaucracy he was a Republican.

Hence, "Vote for the crook. It's important" as a slogan for
GOPers backing Edwards.

Kevin R

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in news:a74d286e-83a5-4907-
af61-847...@googlegroups.com:

Neither can the other. Clinton was, and is, hated more by Demoractic
party leadership than she is by the most conserative wingnuts on the
right. They both bucked party leadership to get the nomination. The
only difference is that Trump did it honestly, while Clinton
blackmailed those who could have called her out (and make no mistake,
she knows about every skeleton they have in their closets).

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Kevrob]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:41:40 AM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in

nd even sometimes succeeding at that.
> >
> > Many of the "never Trump" GOPers in 2016 pointed out the
> > Cheetoh Who Walks Like A Man had, shall we say, fluid
> > political associations. He'd cut a campaign contribution
> > check to whoever he thought he might have to deal with in
> > the course of running his businesses. The NTs were very
> > afraid that, besides the question of whether he had the
> > right principles or not, he could have just been adopting
> > political positions without any regard for principle, and
> > might sell the Republicans out on an issue to serve some
> > other purpose.
>
> Trump has been registered as both Democrat and Republican.
>
> The reason he ran as a Republican was that the only candidate he
> could beat (or even make a decent showing against - I'm still
> fairly certain he didn't actually *want* to win) was Hillary
> Clinton, who was running as a Democrat. If Hillary had run as a
> Republican, Trump would have run as a Democrat.
>

I'd buy that. It is not unusual for "Republican-at-heart"
voters who are registered in New York City to check the
Democratic box when they register, as the Democratic primary
is the de facto election for local office. The same folks,
once they move to the `burbs, may change that status.

Kevin R

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:e28191a5-87ce-400b...@googlegroups.com:

The ultimate example is Schwarzenegger, who ran for governor as a
Republican, but wasn't even a RINO (he just played one in the
movies).

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:99a7edac-730a-40f1...@googlegroups.com:

As I said at the time (and was proven correct), Trump's edge was
that Democrats who couldn't stomach voting for Clinton *might* vote
for Trump, but Republicans who couldn't stomach voting for Trump
would literally vote for Satan before they voted for Hillary
Clinton.

[Jack Bohn]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 11:43:21 AM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in news:a74d286e-83a5-4907-
> af61-847...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Kevrob wrote:
> >
> >> The US political primary system effectively turns parties,
> >> which were private organizations, into quasi-state actors,
> >> in that a party cannot keep an outsider from attempting to
> >> be nominated, and even sometimes succeeding at that.
> >
> > Well, one party can't...
> >
> Neither can the other. Clinton was, and is, hated more by Demoractic
> party leadership than she is by the most conserative wingnuts on the
> right. They both bucked party leadership to get the nomination. The
> only difference is that Trump did it honestly, while Clinton
> blackmailed those who could have called her out (and make no mistake,
> she knows about every skeleton they have in their closets).

Clinton may be hated, (I'll take your word on that), but she's not an outsider, having long been a Democrat. Bernie Sanders was an independent whom I thought had no chance, but, while Republican leaders were wringing their hands over Trump, Democrat leaders took no chance and took actions that smelled so much of smoke-filled-rooms that the highest party member had to resign.

--
-Jack

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Jack Bohn <jack....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:0db91a65-f19a-4298...@googlegroups.com:

Only because Clinton forced them to. They didn't want her, a lot of
them knew full well she couldn't possibly win, even against Trump.

[David Johnston]

On 2017-12-18 7:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 00:35:39 -0700, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2017-12-17 9:36 PM, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>> On 2017-12-18, Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> How about his complete lack of understanding of the rule of law? The
>>>> "rob from the 99% to give to the 1%" tax plan he backs?
>>>
>>> I'm curious: can you point me to a balanced analysis that shows the 1%
>>> will be paying a smaller percentage of the total taxes after the plan
>>> than they do now (compared to the 99%)?
>>>
>>
>> I'm curious. Has it occurred to you that this is a tax cut primarily
>> for corporations?
>
> Why should there not be a tax cut for corporations? The tax on
> corporations gets passed to the consumer.

<snort> Only if that will produce greater profits.

>

[Peter Trei]

How did she "force them too", if they knew she'd lose them the election?

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:80d53437-9655-43e7...@googlegroups.com:

Still quoted above. Try to read before you reply.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:00:27 -0700, David Johnston

Whether it "produces greater profits" or not , the tax on corporations
gets passed on to consumers.

[Quadibloc]

Cutting taxes on corporations reduces a disguised sales tax. It's the rich people who own them, not the ordinary
people who buy from them, who should be taxed.

[Peter Trei]

Are you just guessing that she had dirt on them, or is there any actual
evidence?

[Admittedly, we're talking political hacks here, so that they're dirty
could be assumed a given. But again, do you have any evidence?]

pt

[Peter Trei]

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:7400ecee-cb39-40ff...@googlegroups.com:

> Cutting taxes on corporations reduces a disguised sales tax.
> It's the rich people who own them, not the ordinary people who
> buy from them, who should be taxed.
>

Once again, you snip out what you're replying to, to remove context.

Something like 99% of corporations are "pass through" companies,
small, independently owned (usually family owned) businesses. In
short, the very middle class so despised by liberals. They account
for about half of the US economy. Those businesses are getting a
pretty significant tax break in the current incarnation of the bill.

You will, of course, snip out all of that so you can pretend it
hasn't been explained, and wave your tiny little weenie at the world
to show your blind, stupid hatred of Trump. Again.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:c8ff7960-d317-4041...@googlegroups.com:

If you have any doubts whatsoever, you realy need to stop drinking
the Kool-Aid. But you won't.

[David Johnston]

Nonsense. Corporations can lower their prices...or they can just
increase their profit margin.

[J. Clarke]

How about the ordinary people whose pension plans own them? Most
corporations are not owned by rich individuals, they are owned by
funds and legions of small investors.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in

news:p19apo$p63$2...@gioia.aioe.org:

I suggest you find a grown up to explain the concept of "fiduciary
responsibility" to you. Both of you.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 14:09:10 -0700, David Johnston

Either way, consumers pay the tax.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:oadg3dhduud3t5qfc...@4ax.com:

And the majority of US citizens of taxpaying status are invested in
the stock market, whether they realize it or not.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 12/17/2017 7:13 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 5:24:29 PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 12/17/2017 2:23 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>>> Thanks goodness Trump is President.  I predict that time will show him
>>> to be a great leader of our great nation, the USA.
>
>> The Germans predicted the same of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.
>
>> And Hitler was smarter.
>
> I think that Lynn will prove to be less wrong than that. Trump isn't going to
> invade Poland, Canada, or Mexico to make America greater in size to give its
> people more land to sustain themselves. I worry that he might start World War
> III, all right, but not by starting it directly himself; instead, by encouraging
> Putin to think that he can get away with starting it.
>
> Say by invading Estonia.
>
> John Savard

Actually, I think that it is more likely that Putin will invade North
Korea. And with Trump's approval.

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p19f1v$ub9$1...@dont-email.me:

NO, it will be the Chinese that invade North Korea, and it will be
with UN approval. Trump will merely engineer Russian neutrality.

[J. Clarke]

So how, exactly, is he going to do that? What units is he going to
use, from where are they going to stage, what route are they going to
take?

There is one railroad bridge in the 9 miles of border between Russia
and North Korea, and the Russian Pacific Fleet has two, count them two
landing ships. The only thing that this plan has going for it is that
in principle air dominance could be achieved over most of the country
from the airfields north of Vladivostok. But lose that bridge and
just getting to North Korea will be a problem--the one paved road
doesn't go to the border.

Take a look at it in Google Earth and think about it.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in

news:5rlg3d9eeblhmg93l...@4ax.com:

> Take a look at it in Google Earth and think about it.
>

Thinking does not seem to be Lynn's strong suit. Fantastizing about
apocalyptic revenge fantasies is more his style.

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <XnsA84EB81DD119E...@69.16.179.43>,
Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't have
>*anything* legitimate to complain about. That he is, obviously, in
>your opinion, doing an excellent job.

Yeah...

They told me Nixon was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
all his flaws, Nixon was no Hitler.

They told me Reagan was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
all his flaws, Reagan was no Hitler.

They told me George HW Bush was Hitler, and I ignored them,
because for all his flaws, George HW Bush was no Hitler.

They told me George W Bush was Hitler, and I ignored them,
because for all his flaws, George W Bush was no Hitler.

They told me Trump was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
all his glaring egregious flaws, Trump was no Hitler.

In the unlikely even that a Hitler really does show up at some
point in the future, I'm not going to find out from them,
because I've quit listening to them entirely.



(They seemed to miss saying this about Ford. They just tried
to assassinate him. Twice.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[Dimensional Traveler]

How exactly is Russia going to get troops to North Korea through China?


--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <XnsA84F595EC9F...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I said at the time (and was proven correct), Trump's edge was
>that Democrats who couldn't stomach voting for Clinton *might* vote
>for Trump, but Republicans who couldn't stomach voting for Trump
>would literally vote for Satan before they voted for Hillary
>Clinton.

I contemplated writing in Cthulhu as the Lesser Evil, but
settled for Gary Johnson.

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <p17r4d$72j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm curious. Has it occurred to you that this is a tax cut primarily
>for corporations?

And way overdue. As others have said, taxes on corporations are
dishonestly hidden sales taxes.

And besides, the current U.S. corporate tax rate is just about the
highest in the world. Our corporate tax rate is higher than Cuba's.

[Ninapenda Jibini]

m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote in
news:F3_ZB.5097$iX....@fx39.iad:

> In article <XnsA84EB81DD119E...@69.16.179.43>,
> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Comparing Trump to Hitler is - literally - admitting you don't
>>have *anything* legitimate to complain about. That he is,
>>obviously, in your opinion, doing an excellent job.
>
> Yeah...
>
> They told me Nixon was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
> all his flaws, Nixon was no Hitler.

Nixon didn't kill six million Jews.

>
> They told me Reagan was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
> all his flaws, Reagan was no Hitler.

Reagan didn't kill six million Jews.

>
> They told me George HW Bush was Hitler, and I ignored them,
> because for all his flaws, George HW Bush was no Hitler.

George HW Bush didn't kill six million Jews.

>
> They told me George W Bush was Hitler, and I ignored them,
> because for all his flaws, George W Bush was no Hitler.

George W Bush didn't kill six million Jews.

>
> They told me Trump was Hitler, and I ignored them, because for
> all his glaring egregious flaws, Trump was no Hitler.

Trump didn't kill six million Jews. Nor does he seem likely to send
his grandson to a concentration camp.

>
> In the unlikely even that a Hitler really does show up at some
> point in the future, I'm not going to find out from them,
> because I've quit listening to them entirely.

Your mistake was in *starting* to listen to "them" in the first
place.

>
>
>
> (They seemed to miss saying this about Ford. They just tried
> to assassinate him. Twice.)

Fortunately, every time the rifle was aimed at his head, he
stumbled and fell at *just* the right time, and the bullet missed.
People thought he was clumsy, but really, he was psychic. (Note for
the intellectually impaired, you don't have a clue who you are:
This is a joke, not to be taken seriously or indicate in any way my
belief in historical fact. The punch lins is when - and we all know
it's when, not if - you point out that neither attempt involved a
rifle, nor was he saved by stumbling. We'll be laughing *at* you,
not *with* you.)

--
Terry Austin

[J. Clarke]

I wondered about that too, but looked at Google Earth before
commenting and by golly they do have a border with North Korea. It's
about 9 miles apparently in a river delta, with no highway bridge and
one railroad bridge, but it _is_ a border.

[Lynn McGuire]

Putin is paranoid. The crazy guy in North Korea is ultra paranoid.

Have you ever seen two paranoids in a room together ? Sooner or later,
they start hitting each other with their umbrellas.

I'll bet that Putin can take the crazy guy. But his big brother is a
real problem.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

You know, if you read the Jack Ryan books (character owned by Tom Clancy
and seemingly written by a staff of hundreds now), you would know this.
Actually, I don't read the Jack Ryan books. My wife gets the CD audio
version from our library and a nice British guy reads the book to me in
my truck after she listens to it first.

Lynn

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 3:21:55 PM UTC-7, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Actually, I think that it is more likely that Putin will invade North
> Korea. And with Trump's approval.

The Promise of Joy!

I'd approve of that too, but I don't believe I'll be that lucky or Putin will be
that stupid.

Oh, and my first sentence is the title of a real book. It was the last book in
the series which began with the famous best seller "Advise and Consent".

And, as a nice touch, all the dust raised by a nuclear war between Russia and
China would solve the global warming problem.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:

> I suggest you find a grown up to explain the concept of "fiduciary
> responsibility" to you. Both of you.

Wouldn't the concept of "market power" be more relevant to a determination of
the probable outcome?

i.e. in sectors where there is active price competition, a corporate tax cut
would be passed on to the consumer, but where the situation is different, it
may not be.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Well, those pension payments, being received by low-income people, would be
taxed at a low marginal rate. Capital gains and dividends received by rich
people would be taxed at a higher one.

Thus, I am imagining this situation: sales taxes and corporate taxes are
abolished. Sin taxes and import duties remain, as their purpose is to motivate
behavior. But revenue comes primarily from the graduated income tax, which is
increased to cover the revenue which used to come from sales taxes and
corporate taxes.

John Savard

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 19:44:39 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:40:39 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 12:07:59 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> >Cutting taxes on corporations reduces a disguised sales tax. It's the rich people who own them, not the ordinary
>> >people who buy from them, who should be taxed.
>
>> How about the ordinary people whose pension plans own them? Most
>> corporations are not owned by rich individuals, they are owned by
>> funds and legions of small investors.
>
>Well, those pension payments, being received by low-income people, would be
>taxed at a low marginal rate. Capital gains and dividends received by rich
>people would be taxed at a higher one.
>
>Thus, I am imagining this situation: sales taxes and corporate taxes are
>abolished. Sin taxes and import duties remain, as their purpose is to motivate
>behavior. But revenue comes primarily from the graduated income tax, which is
>increased to cover the revenue which used to come from sales taxes and
>corporate taxes.

How do you go about abolishing sales taxes? In the US sales taxes are
not Federal, they are state and local.

[Dimensional Traveler]

I will rephrase then. "How exactly is Russia going to get enough troops
into North Korea across a single line railroad bridge?" :P

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 20:02:28 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Especially after the North Koreans blow the bridge.

If the Russians really want to take the place I'm sure they can.
Nobody has ever said Russians don't know how to fight. But they would
have to be rather strongly motivated in order to be willing to put
forth the effort.

[Peter Trei]

Russia vs NorKs with China getting in on the fun would, from the US's PoV, be
'Let's you and him fight.' writ large.

Unfortunately, the damage to S. Korea, Japan, and parts of China would be
vastly disrupting to the world.

pt

[Dimensional Traveler]

I had to spend a minute suppressing the urge to add "before a fishing
boat rams one of the pylons and knocks the bridge down?"

> If the Russians really want to take the place I'm sure they can.
> Nobody has ever said Russians don't know how to fight. But they would
> have to be rather strongly motivated in order to be willing to put
> forth the effort.
>

But Putin is not looking for a long, bloody war. One suspects a Russian
invasion of North Korea would make the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
look pleasant.

[J. Clarke]

On Mon, 18 Dec 2017 21:47:03 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

I doubt it. North Korea is not populated by Muslim lunatics.

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

It's inhabited by Juche lunatics. I'm not sure that's any better.

As for how to get Russian troops into the country, Russia may not be
as fond of air cavalry as the U.S. Army, but they do have lots of it,
and they've got a pretty good history with paratroopers, too.

Which does not mean they'd ever be stupid enough to invade North
Korea, but they could if they wanted to.




--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
My latest novel is Tom Derringer in the Tunnels of Terror.
See http://www.watt-evans.com/TomDerringerintheTunnelsofTerror.shtml

[J. Clarke]

It's inhabited by starving people. I doubt that very many of them
actually believe in "juche" no matter how much lip service they may
pay to it to avoid getting their heads chopped off or whatever
punishment the North Korean government applies.

>As for how to get Russian troops into the country, Russia may not be
>as fond of air cavalry as the U.S. Army, but they do have lots of it,
>and they've got a pretty good history with paratroopers, too.

Read "A Bridge Too Far". Paratroopers don't live very long if they
are operating in isolation behind enemy lines. As for air cavalry, it
can't hold territory and it can't deliver heavy equipment. The
biggest helicopter in the Russian military can't carry more than about
20 tons, they can deliver a BMP but not a tank. And keeping tanks
supplied by helicopter would also be a monumental undertaking.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 12/18/17 8:48 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <p17r4d$72j$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I'm curious. Has it occurred to you that this is a tax cut primarily
>> for corporations?
>
> And way overdue. As others have said, taxes on corporations are
> dishonestly hidden sales taxes.

Well... if you apply it evenly across all corporations, it becomes, at
least, an evenly applied tax that is borne in proportion to the use of
ALL products -- ranging from toothpaste to real estate to jumbo jets --
which might be better overall than current sales taxes which
concentrate on the things bought day-to-day by people in the
middle-to-lower brackets.

But of course most sales taxes are local for local government support.
This is part of the cost of having a still pretty decentralized
government with various entities from the size of "Entire Country" down
through "State, county, city" each having their own government and thus
their own separate need for money. You trade autonomy for efficiency.

>
> And besides, the current U.S. corporate tax rate is just about the
> highest in the world. Our corporate tax rate is higher than Cuba's.
>

Third-highest, apparently, although if you take into account the usual
deductions and such, the EFFECTIVE tax rate is much lower. Still higher
than the average, but not tremendously so.



--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.dreamwidth.org

[Sjouke Burry]

Ever heard about pontoon bridges?
Also I remember something about bailey bridges.
An army which relies on existing bridges only,
has stupid leaders.

[Peter Trei]

Actually, what I'd expect we'd see is a lot of materiel coming in by sea.
Vladivostok is only 60 miles away.

Of course, it's NK's nukes which are the wild card, which is exactly how NK
wants it - they are the best guarantee of regime survival, since no country
regards risking nuclear attack as worth it.

Anyone who thinks the Kim Family regime can be persuaded to give up its
nuclear capability is engaged in magical thinking. Kim Jong Un saw what
happened in Libya.

pt

[David Mitchell]

On 17/12/17 22:23, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 3:59 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 1:54:46 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:3214b3d1-5d9c-466c-8788-
>>> 464c82...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> Just read this:
>>
>>>> https://www.snopes.com/george-soros-ss-nazi-germany/
>>
>>>> Why is that guy still able to even show his face in public?
>>
>>> I assume you're referring to the guy that fun Snopes as a liberal
>>> propaganda rag?
>>
>> Maybe Snopes _is_ a liberal propaganda rag, but I don't think they get
>> their
>> *facts* wrong. And facts like that used to totally destroy a person's
>> reputation. Is the world failing to work properly these days?
>>
>> Oh, wait. Trump is President.
>>
>> John Savard

>
> Thanks goodness Trump is President. I predict that time will show him
> to be a great leader of our great nation, the USA.

Since no-one seems to have reminded you: Lynn, you're an idiot.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:3596730d-34d1-4c0a...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, December 18, 2017 at 2:55:22 PM UTC-7, Ninapenda
> Jibini wrote:
>
>> I suggest you find a grown up to explain the concept of
>> "fiduciary responsibility" to you. Both of you.
>
> Wouldn't the concept of "market power" be more relevant to a
> determination of the probable outcome?

QED. Seriously. Have a grown up explain it to you.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Mitchell <david.robo...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ku2dnRCKMM47r6TH...@brightview.co.uk:

He is, yes. But so are Trump's detractors. And, for that matter,
everybody else.

[J. Clarke]

An army which tries to invade across a narrow front also has stupid
leaders. Remember Thermopylae?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

J. Clarke <jclarke...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:o0ki3dhovbb77vegd...@4ax.com:

If Russia wanted to invade North Korea, it would face little
effective resistance. They could send an army across the Tumen
River on paddle powered rafts made of inner tubes, and they'd lose
more soldiers to drowning than North Korean resistance. Hell, the
North Koreans would probably rescue anybody who fell off, so they
could surrender in hopes of getting food as POWs. (Remember the
thousands of Iraqi soldiers during Desert Storm who were sent from
checkpoint to checkpoint without guards, based on nothing more than
a promise of food and water? North Koreans have been a long
hungrier for a lot longer.)

What military might North Korea has is mostly aimed at South Korea,
especially Seoul, as a deterrent to the non-existence threat of
South Korea invading North Korea (and to keep North Koreans from
defecting to somebody that might *feed* them.)

The reason Russia won't invade North Korea isn't practical, it's
political: once they had it, what would they do with it? Why would
they *want* it? They have enough trouble feeding theor own people,
and there's nothing there that Rusia doesn't already have plenty
of.

[Lynn McGuire]

Thanks ! I needed someone to boost me up today.

Let's see what has changed under Trump:
1. the stock market is way up
2. there are 900+ drilling rigs operating in the USA (up 300 from Obola)
3. the economy is growing at 4%
4. we have a large number of new conservative federal district, appeals,
and scotus judges
5. we are getting ready to have a federal tax decrease
6. oh yeah, Hillary is not President !

Lynn

[William Hyde]

Well, give Xerxes a little credit. He did have a rather large navy which would eventually, in theory, have turned the position. And he was "winning", with most of Greece occupied, until that navy was defeated. Whereupon he got out of there rapidly.

Just to be a little on topic for a change, Xerxes is a character in DeCamp's "The Dragon of the Ishtar Gate". Which I recommend.

William Hyde

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:p1buna$v4r$1...@dont-email.me:

Liberals object to that, because the only way to make everyone
equal (to themselves) is to reduce everyone to squalid destitution
(like themselves, having never held down an actual job).

> 2. there are 900+ drilling rigs operating in the USA (up 300
> from Obola) 3. the economy is growing at 4%

That, of course, it literally the end of human civilization,
according to liberals.

> 4. we have a large number of new conservative federal district,
> appeals, and scotus judges

And that is literally hell on earth, to liberals.

> 5. we are getting ready to have a federal tax decrease

But how will we pay for more and more and more and more[1]
entitlement programs! How can we pay for Universal Basic Income!
Holy shit, liberals will have to get *jobs*!!!!!!!!!!!!

> 6. oh yeah, Hillary is not President !
>

Well, I think even liberals can agree that's a good thing. (A good
many of them seem to, even.)





[1] and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more
and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and
more

[J. Clarke]

>Well, give Xerxes a little credit. He did have a rather large navy which would eventually, in theory, have turned the position. And he was "winning", with most of Greece occupied, until that navy was defeated. Whereupon he got out of there rapidly.j

He wasn't "winning" until he got through the pass. He didn't get
through the pass until he found a way around it. In this case the way
around it is through the People's Liberation Army, which if they
favored your invasion would have long since saved you the trouble.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> Let's see what has changed under Trump:
>> 1. the stock market is way up
>
>Liberals object to that, because the only way to make everyone
>equal (to themselves) is to reduce everyone to squalid destitution
>(like themselves, having never held down an actual job).

The market isn't always rational. There were dramatic stock market
booms under both Clinton and Bush Jr. Clinton's crash managed to
arrive under Bush, so Bush got credit for two bubble pops.

Do we get to claim Clinton's bubble as a win?

>> 5. we are getting ready to have a federal tax decrease
>
>But how will we pay for more and more and more and more[1]
>entitlement programs! How can we pay for Universal Basic Income!
>Holy shit, liberals will have to get *jobs*!!!!!!!!!!!!

And more and More and MORE military. The right wing hasn't balanced a
budget in my lifetime in either of our countries. They just want to
splurge on different stuff. And yeah, Clinton's balanced budgets may
have drawn from capital gains on the bubble, but the GOP have never
even come close.


--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Lynn McGuire]

Clinton's balanced budgets used excess income in Social Security and
Medicare to balance. It was several hundred billion dollars per year if
I remember correctly. Or, as algore used to say, the federal lock box.

Lynn

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <f9tj6e...@mid.individual.net>,

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>And yeah, Clinton's balanced budgets may have drawn from capital
>gains on the bubble, but the GOP have never even come close.

Budgets are drawn up by Congress. The President can propose
and lobby and veto, but it's Congress that writes them.

But nobody plots those deficits by who's Speaker of the House
for some reason.

I think the "Clinton" surplus owes more to Gingrich than Clinton.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

[Ninapenda Jibini]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:f9tj6e...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
>
>>> Let's see what has changed under Trump:
>>> 1. the stock market is way up
>>
>>Liberals object to that, because the only way to make everyone
>>equal (to themselves) is to reduce everyone to squalid
>>destitution (like themselves, having never held down an actual
>>job).
>
> The market isn't always rational.

Neither are observers thereof.

> There were dramatic stock
> market booms under both Clinton and Bush Jr. Clinton's crash
> managed to arrive under Bush, so Bush got credit for two bubble
> pops.
>
> Do we get to claim Clinton's bubble as a win?

Sure. If you agree Trmp gets credit for right now.

>
>
>>> 5. we are getting ready to have a federal tax decrease
>>
>>But how will we pay for more and more and more and more[1]
>>entitlement programs! How can we pay for Universal Basic Income!
>>Holy shit, liberals will have to get *jobs*!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> And more and More and MORE military.

We *deperately* need to rebuild after nearly 20 years of expending
everything expendable (including people) and shit for support
because the President actively hates the military.

> The right wing hasn't
> balanced a budget in my lifetime in either of our countries.
> They just want to splurge on different stuff. And yeah,
> Clinton's balanced budgets may have drawn from capital gains on
> the bubble, but the GOP have never even come close.

If you agree that Hillary would have done exactly the same, what,
exactly, is your complaint?

--
Terry Austin