OT who said this ?
JerryD(upstateNY)
(2) 'It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for
shared prosperity.'
(3) '(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
has to be taken away from some people.'
(4) 'We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to
give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common
ground.'
(5) 'I certainly think the free-market has failed.'
(6) 'I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
profitable sector in the entire economy - that they are being watched.
You might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl
Marx.
You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our very
own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
Hillary Clinton!
Comments made on:
(1) 6/29/04
(2) 5/29/07
(3) 6/4/07
(4) 6/4/07
(5) 6/4/07
(6) 9/2/05
Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
Robert Allison
>
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>
> Just to be fair.
>
> Tom
Do you realize how much trouble and time someone went to in
order to come up with those quotes? And they had to take them
out of context and fractionalized just to get something that
even sounds bad.
Based on that, I think we can feel fairly secure that those
are the only ones that even faintly resemble anything
approaching socialism and that there is nothing else out there
to worry about.
Thanks, I was wondering about that. That clears up Hillarys
record.
Anyone working on Obama and/or Edwards? It would be good to
clear up their positions, also.
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
TS
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:46:47 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
>
>
>
>
>
> <jer...@wherever.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fair my ass. Snopes is a liberal ass kissing enterprise. e,g, in
their first example they attempt to defuse Clinton's comment based on
to whom she was speaking. What the hell does that have to do with it?
She said it.
TS
Al Balmer
>>You might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl
>>Marx.
>>You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
>>These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our very
>>own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
>>
>>
>>Hillary Clinton!
>>
>>Comments made on:
>>(1) 6/29/04
>>(2) 5/29/07
>>(3) 6/4/07
>>(4) 6/4/07
>>(5) 6/4/07
>>(6) 9/2/05
>>
>>Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>
>
>For accuracy,
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>
>Just to be fair.
>
The Snopes article provides context, and tries to give the impression
that the statements weren't really so bad, but even in context, the
meaning and intent doesn't change much. The failed attempt only
exposes Snopes' own political bias.
Another famous quote:
"Be afraid. Be very afraid."
I should note that a lot of people really think socialism is a good
idea, and that unlike previous attempts, they can actually make it
work if they're given the power.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Don Lampson
oval office, just to hear the howling from the usual dolts of RORT!
The same folks who get after others for not backing the Prez, and
"hating" Bush, will be writing the same stuff they now claim is
"unpatriotic"!
I hope someone saves the quotes to see how the right wingers explain
why it will be different then! HawHawHaw!
Don
Al Balmer
<rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>Do you realize how much trouble and time someone went to in
>order to come up with those quotes? And they had to take them
>out of context and fractionalized just to get something that
>even sounds bad.
Didn't even read the Snopes article, did you? <g>
Even in context, with all the spin Snopes could muster, they still
sound bad.
GBinNC
>For accuracy,
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>
>Just to be fair.
>
>Tom
Fair, yeah. But a waste of your time.
Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
up and slammed shut.
GB in NC
Jenny6833A
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:06:44 -0700, al...@nospam.net wrote:
> >>You might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl
> >>Marx.
> >>You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
> >>These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our very
> >>own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
>
> >>Hillary Clinton!
>
> >>Comments made on:
> >>(1) 6/29/04
> >>(2) 5/29/07
> >>(3) 6/4/07
> >>(4) 6/4/07
> >>(5) 6/4/07
> >>(6) 9/2/05
>
> >>Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>
> >For accuracy,
>
> >http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>
> >Just to be fair.
>
> The Snopes article provides context, and tries to give the impression
> that the statements weren't really so bad, but even in context, the
> meaning and intent doesn't change much. The failed attempt only
> exposes Snopes' own political bias.
ROTFL
Balmer has his posterior made up and won't let facts get in the way.
> I should note that a lot of people really think socialism is a good
> idea, and that unlike previous attempts, they can actually make it
> work if they're given the power.
ROTFL again.
There are a lot of countries that you'd call 'socialist' that are
doing quite nicely, thank you. Their citizens live longer, have
better medical care (far better), and more leisure time to spend
raising their kids right.
They aren't perfect, by any means, but they are what they are because
their citizens freely chose that path and reaffirm their decision year
after year.
It appears that Balmer doesn't believe in democracy unless it produces
the answer HE wants.
:-)
Jenny
(who thinks Hillary, in context, is right on target)
>
> --
> Al Balmer
> Sun City, AZ- Hide quoted text -
Robert Allison
I read the entire thing. It may sound bad to you, but not to
me.
Ever wonder why there are two parties? (And there should be
even more, at least one that I could hang my hat in.)
It is due to differing opinions on how to go about having a
better country. There is your view, my view, and the view we
don't know about because no one has thought of it, yet.
I won't be voting for Hillary, most likely, but I haven't
reached a decision, yet. I am leaning towards Ron Paul. I
have known about him for a while due to his being a
representative of the central TX area and I have liked what he
has tried to do. Plus, he is a libertarian.
NOTE to all the mad dogs: Libertarian is different than
Liberal. It is not a Liberal librarian. Not that there's
anything wrong with that.
Robert Allison
Every time I see the word "ilk", I think of Pluto in the
disney cartoons. His laugh.
Ah ilk, ah ilk, ah ilk, ah ilk!
Robert Allison
And like liberal, it doesn't even mean anything bad.
From the online dictinary:
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his
ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though
the sense of ilk, "kind or sort," is actually quite recent,
having been first recorded at the end of the 18th century.
This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase of
that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation,
or name." This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed
families, Guthrie of that ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie."
"Same" is the fundamental meaning of the word. The ancestors
of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were common
words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but
the word hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.
GBinNC
wrote:
> The same folks who get after others for not backing the Prez, and
>"hating" Bush, will be writing the same stuff they now claim is
>"unpatriotic"!
It's like the ones here who complain about it when somebody calls
President Bush an unflattering name but routinely refer to President
Clinton as "anklepants."
Apparently it's only unfair when somebody else does it.
GB in NC
JanO...@aol.com
At "My/Our ILK LODGE" we serve tasty drinks and
a fine BBQ Dinner. Puts one hell of a like minded
smile on our ilk mutts.
:) <pccg>
Jan Eric Orme
"Private Order Of Like Minded ILK"
Al Balmer
<rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>Al Balmer wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:49:58 GMT, Robert Allison
>> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>>
>>>Do you realize how much trouble and time someone went to in
>>>order to come up with those quotes? And they had to take them
>>>out of context and fractionalized just to get something that
>>>even sounds bad.
>>
>>
>> Didn't even read the Snopes article, did you? <g>
>>
>> Even in context, with all the spin Snopes could muster, they still
>> sound bad.
>>
>
>I read the entire thing. It may sound bad to you, but not to
>me.
OK. Just don't complain when someone calls you a socialist liberal
<g>.
>
<snip>
>NOTE to all the mad dogs: Libertarian is different than
>Liberal.
Not always, apparently. I didn't know Libertarians were into
socialism.
PS: What do mad dogs have to do with anything?
Robert Allison
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:24:32 GMT, Robert Allison
> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Al Balmer wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:49:58 GMT, Robert Allison
>>><rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>>
>>>
>>>>Do you realize how much trouble and time someone went to in
>>>>order to come up with those quotes? And they had to take them
>>>>out of context and fractionalized just to get something that
>>>>even sounds bad.
>>>
>>>
>>>Didn't even read the Snopes article, did you? <g>
>>>
>>>Even in context, with all the spin Snopes could muster, they still
>>>sound bad.
>>>
>>
>>I read the entire thing. It may sound bad to you, but not to
>>me.
>
>
> OK. Just don't complain when someone calls you a socialist liberal
> <g>.
I don't complain about the labels thrown around in here. You
can call me anything you want, I won't mind. <g>
> <snip>
>
>>NOTE to all the mad dogs: Libertarian is different than
>>Liberal.
>
>
> Not always, apparently. I didn't know Libertarians were into
> socialism.
Define socialism.
> PS: What do mad dogs have to do with anything?
>
Many people (I call them mad dogs) when they see lib... cannot
see any farther than that and become enraged or fearful much
like a rabid dog does when offered water. I wanted to make
sure they saw the difference between lib-eral and
lib-ertarian. I have known them to make the jump after the
first three letters.
Robert Allison
Do you serve barbecue ilk? No matter how you cook it, it
always tastes the same.
:-)
Frank Tabor
I have this to say about those who regularly use the terms
"anklepants";
The only way they would have known his pants were around his
ankles is if they were bent over looking back between their own
ankles.
--
Frank Tabor
tybrown
wrote:
<Snipped>
>Fair my ass. Snopes is a liberal ass kissing enterprise. e,g, in
>their first example they attempt to defuse Clinton's comment based on
>to whom she was speaking. What the hell does that have to do with it?
>She said it.
>TS
It seems to me context has a lot to do with it.
If you said "I want to take it in the ass" as a response to your Dr
asking about giving you a shot is one thing, and is a LOT different
than you making the same statement in a Gay Leather Bar.
That's what it has to do with it.
Ty
Bruce S
"Al Balmer" <alba...@att.net> wrote in message
news:oc80f3l6f2p1hlkf9...@4ax.com...
That was the same conclusion I came to the last time this was posted. Even
Snopes couldn't make it sound good - and they tried very hard.
Bruce
Bruce S
<Ty Brown> wrote in message
news:slc0f3pa63hrauh71...@4ax.com...
But when you say you want to take the profit out of business, or that
capitalism has failed, it does not matter who you are saying it to. those
are both socialist statements.
Bruce
Bruce S
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote
>
> It appears that Balmer doesn't believe in democracy unless it produces
> the answer HE wants.
I don't believe in democracy at all - as the old saying goes, democracy is 3
wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Bruce
Al Balmer
<rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>> Not always, apparently. I didn't know Libertarians were into
>> socialism.
>
>Define socialism.
Take from the rich and give to the poor (one aspect.) What Hillary was
espousing in the Snopes article. It was amusing that Snopes thought it
was OK because she was proposing to take the money from rich
Democrats.
Bruce S
"Robert Allison" <rims...@spamless.net> wrote
> Robert Allison wrote:
>>
>> Every time I see the word "ilk", I think of Pluto in the disney cartoons.
>> His laugh.
>>
>> Ah ilk, ah ilk, ah ilk, ah ilk!
>>
>
> And like liberal, it doesn't even mean anything bad.
And if you had been here last year for the great "ilk" debate, you would
know that most of us already knew that.
The current use of the word here is mostly a joke because someone (a liberal
for whatever that is worth) took offense at the use of the word, insisting
that it was always used in a negative connotation.
The debate ensued with conservatives pointing out that the word itself is
neither good nor bad and if you take offense at being grouped with similar
people, maybe you should reconsider who you are like. As a result of that
discussion "wingnut" now uses the signature line, "Of no ilk" and other
people use the word to point out the absurdity of the original complaint.
Bruce
Al Balmer
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:33:23 GMT, Al Balmer <alba...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>The failed attempt only
>>exposes Snopes' own political bias.
>
>Now that's funny! Snopes has a political bias...... yeah, right.
You don't think so? Why should they be immune? For that matter, why
should anyone care, except to take their political analyses with a
grain of salt, which you should do no matter who is presenting them. I
don't rely on Snopes as a primary source for anything - as far as I
know, nobody does, except Bill B <g>.
In this case, it seemed pretty obvious that they were trying to defend
Hillary's quoted statements. Unfortunately, they aren't defensible :-)
>
>Watch for the black helicopters, they could swoop in at any moment...
>
>Tom
Robert Allison
I thought that was Robin Hood. I thought that as a nation, we
mutually agreed that some things were better done as a whole
instead of individually. Therefore, taxation was instituted
to pay for the things that gov't does.
That is the taking part.
The gov't then does what it does, such as provide for our
common defense, move the mail, educate the kids, build roads.
War was the first thing the gov't. did with tax money. (And I
am speaking here about the federal income tax.)
That is the giving part.
We all give, we all take, some more than others.
Using your definition, if taking from the rich and giving to
the poor is socialism, then what is the system we have now
called (taking from the middle class and giving to the rich)?
Robert Allison
What about when you say: Capitalism has failed... to make a
difference in the number of abortions.
Does it sound bad then?
If she had said that she wanted to take the profit out of
business, then that would be bad.
Can you show me where she said that?
Jim Waugh
> The Snopes article provides context, and tries to give the impression
> that the statements weren't really so bad, but even in context, the
> meaning and intent doesn't change much. The failed attempt only
> exposes Snopes' own political bias.
>
> Another famous quote:
> "Be afraid. Be very afraid."
>
> I should note that a lot of people really think socialism is a good
> idea, and that unlike previous attempts, they can actually make it
> work if they're given the power.
>
I can't wait for the howling about "SOCIALIZED Medicine" to start.
Police depts are socialized, fire depts are socialized. Hell, a
lot of stuff is already socialized. We should be so lucky to
have a medical system as good as Canada, Britain or that horrible
bogeyman, France. Britain started free medical at the end of WWII.
We gotta get all the profit monsters out of medicine. All the talk
about the wonderful superior American medical system is just pure
bullshit.
OK, all the conkooks can start proselytizing now.
Jim W
Deming
Lon VanOstran
> I can hardly wait until someone else gets his / her keister in the
> oval office, just to hear the howling from the usual dolts of RORT!
> The same folks who get after others for not backing the Prez, and
> "hating" Bush, will be writing the same stuff they now claim is
> "unpatriotic"!
> I hope someone saves the quotes to see how the right wingers explain
> why it will be different then! HawHawHaw!
Wrong, dimwit. I'll be on America's side in every war, no matter which
party is in office. Unlike you, I wouldn't sell America down the river
to get my party back in power.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
Why would you people consider "Anklepants" an insult?
You've never stopped defending his behavior. Not even while bashing
Republicans who step over the line and get run out of office by
REPUBLICANS. lol
Lon
Lon VanOstran
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:06:44 -0700, al...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>For accuracy,
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>>Just to be fair.
>>
>>Tom
>
>
> Fair, yeah. But a waste of your time.
>
> Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
> up and slammed shut.
>
> GB in NC
GB seems to think that every mind which doesn't agree with his, is
"slammed shut." LOL
Lon
Lon VanOstran
>>Fair, yeah. But a waste of your time.
>>
>>Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
>>up and slammed shut.
>>
>>GB in NC
>
>
> It was only my intent to bring fairness and balance to the table.
> Not the Fox news version.......
>
> Tom
Just what we've come to expect. When BOTH side of an issue are
presented, you lefties bitch about it being a "Fox news version", as
though that's in insult. Don't you just hate it when both sides of an
issue are presented? LOL
Lon
Robert Allison
Just repeating it. BTW, I have been around here for about 8
years.
Never hurts to educate or in this case reeducate, or would you
prefer reiterate?
You never know who is lurking that is new.
Al Balmer
<rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>Al Balmer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:21:07 GMT, Robert Allison
>> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Not always, apparently. I didn't know Libertarians were into
>>>>socialism.
>>>
>>>Define socialism.
>>
>>
>> Take from the rich and give to the poor (one aspect.) What Hillary was
>> espousing in the Snopes article. It was amusing that Snopes thought it
>> was OK because she was proposing to take the money from rich
>> Democrats.
>>
>
>I thought that was Robin Hood. I thought that as a nation, we
>mutually agreed that some things were better done as a whole
>instead of individually. Therefore, taxation was instituted
>to pay for the things that gov't does.
>
>That is the taking part.
>
>The gov't then does what it does, such as provide for our
>common defense, move the mail, educate the kids, build roads.
>War was the first thing the gov't. did with tax money. (And I
>am speaking here about the federal income tax.)
>
>That is the giving part.
>
>We all give, we all take, some more than others.
Yep. However, we don't all agree about how far this process should go,
or how much of the taking and giving should be the province of the
Federal government. I prefer to minimize it, Hillary prefers to
maximize it. That may be because she wants the power to control it,
and I don't want her to have the power to control me.
>
>Using your definition, if taking from the rich and giving to
>the poor is socialism, then what is the system we have now
>called (taking from the middle class and giving to the rich)?
I call it fictitious. Check the IRS statistics sometime. You'll find
them enlightening.
Nate
"Robert Allison" <rims...@spamless.net> wrote in message
news:adUHi.17308$re2.10428@trnddc02...
> al...@nospam.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:46:47 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
>> <jer...@wherever.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>(1) 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common
>>>good.'
>>>(2) 'It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few,
>>>by the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility
>>>for shared prosperity.'
>>>(3) '(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means
>>>something has to be taken away from some people.'
>>>(4) 'We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to
>>>give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common
>>>ground.'
>>>(5) 'I certainly think the free-market has failed.'
>>>(6) 'I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the
>>>most profitable sector in the entire economy - that they are being
>>>watched.
>>>
>>>
>>>You might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism,
>>>Karl Marx.
>>>You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
>>>These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our very
>>>own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
>>>
>>>
>>>Hillary Clinton!
>>>
>>>Comments made on:
>>>(1) 6/29/04
>>>(2) 5/29/07
>>>(3) 6/4/07
>>>(4) 6/4/07
>>>(5) 6/4/07
>>>(6) 9/2/05
>>>
>>>Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>>
>>
>>
>> For accuracy,
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>> Just to be fair.
>>
>> Tom
>
> up with those quotes? And they had to take them out of context and
> fractionalized just to get something that even sounds bad.
>
> ones that even faintly resemble anything approaching socialism and that
> there is nothing else out there to worry about.
>
> Thanks, I was wondering about that. That clears up Hillarys record.
>
> Anyone working on Obama and/or Edwards? It would be good to clear up
> their positions, also.
>
> --
> Robert Allison Rimshot, Inc.
> Georgetown, TX
Robert...did you click the link that Tom provided? Snopes put a lot of
energy into saying the statements were taken out of context...but even with
all the relevant text they added to the statements, it still said the same
thing. All those statements, taken with the proper context, still lead me
to believe Hillary is a Marxist. Can you counter that statement?
Nate
Lon VanOstran
> I have a new perspective on all those here, right or left, who have
> been defined as such.
We all define ourselves with that which we post, no matter who howls
which way, when we post it.
The man who always argues against the Conservatives and Libertarians,
defines himself as leaning to the left, no matter how much he protests
the labels which come with that lean.
Lon
Nate
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190142912.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 18, 11:33?am, Al Balmer <albal...@att.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:06:44 -0700, al...@nospam.net wrote:
>> >>Karl
>> >>Marx.
>> >>You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
>> >>These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our
>> >>very
>> >>own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
>>
>> >>Hillary Clinton!
>>
>> >>Comments made on:
>> >>(1) 6/29/04
>> >>(2) 5/29/07
>> >>(3) 6/4/07
>> >>(4) 6/4/07
>> >>(5) 6/4/07
>> >>(6) 9/2/05
>>
>> >>Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>>
>> >For accuracy,
>>
>> >http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>> >Just to be fair.
>>
>> that the statements weren't really so bad, but even in context, the
>> meaning and intent doesn't change much. The failed attempt only
>> exposes Snopes' own political bias.
>
>
> Balmer has his posterior made up and won't let facts get in the way.
>
>> I should note that a lot of people really think socialism is a good
>> idea, and that unlike previous attempts, they can actually make it
>> work if they're given the power.
>
>
> There are a lot of countries that you'd call 'socialist' that are
> doing quite nicely, thank you. Their citizens live longer, have
> better medical care (far better), and more leisure time to spend
> raising their kids right.
>
> They aren't perfect, by any means, but they are what they are because
> their citizens freely chose that path and reaffirm their decision year
> after year.
>
> It appears that Balmer doesn't believe in democracy unless it produces
> the answer HE wants.
>
>
> Jenny
> (who thinks Hillary, in context, is right on target)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Al Balmer
>> Sun City, AZ- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
Those countries are free to run their own political systems. And you are
free to move there. Those are choices. Our system is based on capitalism
and a lot of people from various socialist countries are trying to move to
our country (legally and illegally) in order to prosper. While some US
citizens do in fact move to other countries and become citizens of such
countries...why is it that more move to US than move out? In my humble
opine...it's because our system is better than theirs (said in a school
playground kind of spoilt way).
Nate
Nate
<al...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:hl90f3posnjv7efi7...@4ax.com...
>>exposes Snopes' own political bias.
>
>
>
> Tom
Show me something that leans to conservative ways of thought on a Snopes.com
url.
Nate
Nate
"GBinNC" <GBi...@xgmailx.com> wrote in message
news:5j80f39oev6k5khgg...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:06:44 -0700, al...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>>For accuracy,
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>>Just to be fair.
>>
>
> Fair, yeah. But a waste of your time.
>
> Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
> up and slammed shut.
>
> GB in NC
I read it. I believe the context they added was true. I still think the
statements meaning did not change. Can you counter that statement based on
anything written in the URL listed by Tom?
Nate
LK
>On 18 Sep, 12:06, al...@nospam.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:46:47 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <jer...@wherever.com> wrote:
>> >(1) 'We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.'
>> >(2) 'It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by
>> >the few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for
>> >shared prosperity.'
>> >(3) '(We) can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something
>> >has to be taken away from some people.'
>> >(4) 'We have to build a political consensus, and that requires people to
>> >give up a little bit of their own turf in order to create this common
>> >ground.'
>> >(5) 'I certainly think the free-market has failed.'
>> >(6) 'I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most
>> >profitable sector in the entire economy - that they are being watched.
>>
>> >You might think these were the famous words of the Father of communism, Karl
>> >Marx.
>> >You would be on the right track in thinking so but you would be wrong.
>> >These pearls of socialist/Marxist wisdom are from no other than our very
>> >own, home-grown Marxist. . . .
>>
>> >Hillary Clinton!
>>
>> >Comments made on:
>> >(1) 6/29/04
>> >(2) 5/29/07
>> >(3) 6/4/07
>> >(4) 6/4/07
>> >(5) 6/4/07
>> >(6) 9/2/05
>>
>> >Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>>
>> For accuracy,
>>
>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>> Just to be fair.
>>
>> Tom- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>I'm not Fair - so kiss my ass. Snopes is not a liberal ass kissing enterprise. e,g, in
>their first example they attempt correctly to defuse Clinton's comment based on
>to whom she was speaking. That is What the hell everything has to do with it.
>She said it and I took it as written even though it's all BS.
>TS
There. Now tell me you didn't write the above. If you spoke it and I
re-wrote it to make it sound convoluted, then I would not be wrong.
LK
Nate
And what ever happened to taxation by representation?
How about a fair tax...where each person pays according to what he uses?
How about a level tax...not according to what you make...just a flat tax?
You live in our country and this is what it cost to live here.
There are all sorts of ways to tax the people of a nation. Is one way more
fair than another? That depends on which class you're asking at the time.
What bothers me about socialism is what they end up doing with the tax
money. Giving my money to the poor just so they can remain poor and be
comfortable doing so seems a bit ridiculous to me. And this whole national
healthcare crisis is a sham. People have been surviving for centuries
without health insurance. It is a way of life for some people. But Hillary
Clinton believes everyone should have what she has and she thinks it's OK to
use my money to give them what I have worked my ass of for. Bull Shit!
Socialism only benefits the lazy bastard poor class and the government that
supports them. It doesn't benefit me in any way...therefore...I am against
it.
You're free to disagree with my assessment. But I own that assessment and
it won't go away.
Nate
Bruce S
"Robert Allison" <rims...@spamless.net> wrote
> Bruce S wrote:
>>
>> But when you say you want to take the profit out of business, or that
>> capitalism has failed, it does not matter who you are saying it to.
>> those are both socialist statements.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> What about when you say: Capitalism has failed... to make a difference in
> the number of abortions.
>
> Does it sound bad then?
>
> If she had said that she wanted to take the profit out of business, then
> that would be bad.
>
> Can you show me where she said that?
I don't have it handy (and don't care enough to look for it now), but I
watched the news clip of Hillary saying that the profit had to be taken from
the oil companies. If she believes that one industry should be deprived of
its profits, I can't see how any are safe.
Bruce
Bruce S
"Robert Allison" <rims...@spamless.net> wrote
The political posts here are redundant enough without adding to it by
defining words that everyone already knows. If a lurker stumbles in and
fails to get the joke, he can ask - then you have the opportunity to
demonstrate your ability to use a dictionary. Until then, its old news.
Bruce
Nate
>>>Using your definition, if taking from the rich and giving to
>>>the poor is socialism, then what is the system we have now called (taking
>>>from the middle class and giving to the rich)?
>>
>>
>> I call it fictitious. Check the IRS statistics sometime. You'll find
>> them enlightening.
>
> the system called whereby we take from everyone and make our children pay
> for it?
>
> --
> Robert Allison Rimshot, Inc.
> Georgetown, TX
OK...that's another discussion. So let's have it here. Are you in
agreement with Al about how enlightening the IRS statistics are? Or did you
simply dodge saying you were wrong about the whole statement you made?
Nate
Nate
"Bruce S" <bruce...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ZWHi.97200$Mu5....@newsfe15.phx...
>
> "Al Balmer" <alba...@att.net> wrote in message
> news:oc80f3l6f2p1hlkf9...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:49:58 GMT, Robert Allison
>> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>>>Do you realize how much trouble and time someone went to in
>>>order to come up with those quotes? And they had to take them
>>>out of context and fractionalized just to get something that
>>>even sounds bad.
>>
>>
>> Even in context, with all the spin Snopes could muster, they still
>> sound bad.
>
> That was the same conclusion I came to the last time this was posted.
> Even Snopes couldn't make it sound good - and they tried very hard.
>
> Bruce
>
>
What? They made it sound good to Clinton supporters and socialists. Of
course...it sounded good to that group without Snopes help. It was a
pointless post...I'll give you that. But to say it did not sound
good...nope...that's just wrong. LOL
Nate
>
Nate
"Ty Brown" wrote in message
news:slc0f3pa63hrauh71...@4ax.com...
>
>>Fair my ass. Snopes is a liberal ass kissing enterprise. e,g, in
>>their first example they attempt to defuse Clinton's comment based on
>>to whom she was speaking. What the hell does that have to do with it?
>>She said it.
>>TS
> It seems to me context has a lot to do with it.
>
> If you said "I want to take it in the ass" as a response to your Dr
> asking about giving you a shot is one thing, and is a LOT different
> than you making the same statement in a Gay Leather Bar.
>
>
> Ty
Did you read the Snopes article. I can rewrite your response to clear
things up.
If you said "I want to take it in the ass" as a response to a Gay man in a
Minneapolis Airport restroom it would mean the same thing as if you said
that statement in a Gay Leather Bar (whatever that is).
The context did not change when Snopes added the requisite text to the
posted statements. Read it and then comment.
Nate
Nate
> Bruce S wrote:
>
>> <Ty Brown> wrote in message
>> news:slc0f3pa63hrauh71...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:52:22 -0700, TS <tsha...@sbcglobal.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>><Snipped>
>>>
>>>>Fair my ass. Snopes is a liberal ass kissing enterprise. e,g, in
>>>>their first example they attempt to defuse Clinton's comment based on
>>>>to whom she was speaking. What the hell does that have to do with it?
>>>>She said it.
>>>>TS
>>>
>>>It seems to me context has a lot to do with it.
>>>
>>>If you said "I want to take it in the ass" as a response to your Dr
>>>asking about giving you a shot is one thing, and is a LOT different
>>>than you making the same statement in a Gay Leather Bar.
>>>
>>>That's what it has to do with it.
>>>
>>>Ty
>>
>>
>> But when you say you want to take the profit out of business, or that
>> capitalism has failed, it does not matter who you are saying it to.
>> those are both socialist statements.
>>
>> Bruce
>
> What about when you say: Capitalism has failed... to make a difference in
> the number of abortions.
But that is not what she said...nor what Snopes said she said.. You're
maiing shit up to keep from admitting you're wrong. Read the Snopes article
and then post something relevent. Jeeze this is a tough crowd.
Nate
Nate
"Jenny6833A" <Jenny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190142912.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> the answer HE wants.
>
> :-)
>
> Jenny
> (who thinks Hillary, in context, is right on target)
Good thing for us our constitution guarantees us a Republican form of
government...not a democracy. If we chose to, we can take it back.
If you think Hillary, in context, is right on the money then you admit you
are a Marxist...right? Cuz the context did not change the statements one
bit.
Nate
Nate
"Jim Waugh" <cuem...@cuemaster.com> wrote in message
news:eM-dneccO5wo2G3b...@pghconnect.com...
I like the idea of free medicine. The problem with the direction we are
heading is that our politicians don't agree. Free medicine would create an
inferior system and the rich people would step in and create a better
system. Then the socialists would demand access to the better system...that
the rich people paid for. It's never enough for them.
A system that provides basic healthcare for the poor is acceptable. And
BTW...we currently have such a system. No one in this country has to go
without basic healthcare...period. But people who can afford the premiums
for insurance get a step up to a better system. If you can afford higher
premiums you can have premium healthcare. The harder you work...the more
you can afford. Some people drive Chevys and are perfectly happy doing
so...until they see someone drive by in a Lotus. Then they want the Lotus.
They have a choice...they can get a better paying job (maybe go to college
and get a degree that access that better job), they can sit on the side of
the road and bitch about not having what the rich guy has...or they can vote
Democrat and hope that Hillary gives them a Lotus for all their hard work at
the polls.
Nate
Nate
"Lon VanOstran" <RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:5lauu4F...@mid.individual.net...
yubut...that goes both ways, Lon. The right are constantly bad mouthing CNN
too.
Nate (who watches both and just doesn't get it anyhow)
Bruce S
"Nate" <nsaptaem...@nsvpbaemll.net> wrote
>
> What bothers me about socialism is what they end up doing with the tax
> money. Giving my money to the poor just so they can remain poor and be
> comfortable doing so seems a bit ridiculous to me.
What bothers me about socialism is that the whole idea is premised on a
myth - the myth of human goodness. The very idea of "from each according to
his ability; to each according to his need" is based on the false premise
that people will not abuse the system. As soon as the first person figures
out that he can take without giving the whole socialist ideal fails.
The only way such a system can work is with a small, close knit, very
homogeneous community. In such a community, everyone knows everyone else's
business and helps to enforce the ideal - and that is important - anyone who
can produce, but does not, must be removed from the community. Other than a
few kibbutzim and tribal societies, it will not work, and has never worked.
Modern society is too big and too heterogeneous. People feel no obligation
to contribute as long as they can take.
Bruce
Jim Waugh
>> I can't wait for the howling about "SOCIALIZED Medicine" to start.
>> Police depts are socialized, fire depts are socialized. Hell, a
>> lot of stuff is already socialized. We should be so lucky to
>> have a medical system as good as Canada, Britain or that horrible
>> bogeyman, France. Britain started free medical at the end of WWII.
>> We gotta get all the profit monsters out of medicine. All the talk
>> about the wonderful superior American medical system is just pure
>> bullshit.
>
> I like the idea of free medicine. The problem with the direction we are
> heading is that our politicians don't agree. Free medicine would create
> an inferior system and the rich people would step in and create a better
> system. Then the socialists would demand access to the better
> system...that the rich people paid for. It's never enough for them.
>
Horseshit bafflegab. In all of the countries with free health care you
can pay for your own medical care if you choose to do so. It has not
resulted in anyone trying to take over any better system for the rich.
> A system that provides basic healthcare for the poor is acceptable. And
> BTW...we currently have such a system. No one in this country has to go
> without basic healthcare...period.
More horseshit. Try going without insurance sometime. Most healthcare
in this country has been taken over and bought out by the insurance
companies. Not many county hospitals left. The ones that do accept
non-paying patients are overburdened to the point they can barely
stay in operation.
>But people who can afford the
> premiums for insurance get a step up to a better system. If you can
> afford higher premiums you can have premium healthcare.
Turned in a claim recently. These "healthcare" facilties get bonuses
for how many patients they turn away. They are profit driven not
client care driven. The more premiums and the less actual healthcare,
the more profits.
>The harder you
> work...the more you can afford. Some people drive Chevys and are
> perfectly happy doing so...until they see someone drive by in a Lotus.
> Then they want the Lotus. They have a choice...they can get a better
> paying job (maybe go to college and get a degree that access that better
> job), they can sit on the side of the road and bitch about not having
> what the rich guy has...or they can vote Democrat and hope that Hillary
> gives them a Lotus for all their hard work at the polls.
>
Meaningless drivel. Open your eyes. Many people are paying out the
ass for expensive healthcare premiums. When they finally put in that
claim, they are turned down by someone who only cares about the
bottom line and not about the client who has dutifully paid in for
years. Yes, some healthcare is experimental and some procedures
are very new. Wait until you are in the same situation and see
how quickly your views change. How high are your premiums?
Jim W
Deming
Jim Waugh
>
> GB seems to think that every mind which doesn't agree with his, is
> "slammed shut." LOL
>
> Lon
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Jim W
Deming
Lon VanOstran
When CNN starts presenting both sides of the issues, I'll stop calling
them the "Communist News Network."
Lon
Lon VanOstran
It's all about "incentives".
When a man is rewarded as much for failure as he would be for success,
where is the incentive to succeed?
When one man is punished for success, and another is rewarded for
failure, the system which causes that can not survive.
No matter who says otherwise, men must be motivated by SOMETHING other
than pipe dreams and their peckers.
Lon
Nate
> Nate wrote:
>
>>> I can't wait for the howling about "SOCIALIZED Medicine" to start.
>>> Police depts are socialized, fire depts are socialized. Hell, a
>>> lot of stuff is already socialized. We should be so lucky to
>>> have a medical system as good as Canada, Britain or that horrible
>>> bogeyman, France. Britain started free medical at the end of WWII.
>>> We gotta get all the profit monsters out of medicine. All the talk
>>> about the wonderful superior American medical system is just pure
>>> bullshit.
>>
>> I like the idea of free medicine. The problem with the direction we are
>> heading is that our politicians don't agree. Free medicine would create
>> an inferior system and the rich people would step in and create a better
>> system. Then the socialists would demand access to the better
>> system...that the rich people paid for. It's never enough for them.
>>
> Horseshit bafflegab. In all of the countries with free health care you
> can pay for your own medical care if you choose to do so. It has not
> resulted in anyone trying to take over any better system for the rich.
Hoeshit bafflegab backatcha. Those systems were not designed and
admisistered by the Hillary Clinton ilks. And...those systems rely on US
medicine to advance so they can use our technology. If we eliminate our
research then those systems will dry up and fail also. As long as the US
system stays intact, other freeloading countries can institute a free
healcare system without much loss. Wanna make a bet on what happens if we
move to free healthcare?
Why do you think Hillary is not supporting free healthcare? Why do you
think she keeps talking about INSURING the Americans? Becasue she knows
they system relys on wealth.
>
>
>> A system that provides basic healthcare for the poor is acceptable. And
>> BTW...we currently have such a system. No one in this country has to go
>> without basic healthcare...period.
> More horseshit. Try going without insurance sometime. Most healthcare
> in this country has been taken over and bought out by the insurance
> companies. Not many county hospitals left. The ones that do accept
> non-paying patients are overburdened to the point they can barely
> stay in operation.
I've been without health insurance. What's your point?
>
>>But people who can afford the premiums for insurance get a step up to a
>>better system. If you can afford higher premiums you can have premium
>>healthcare.
> Turned in a claim recently. These "healthcare" facilties get bonuses
> for how many patients they turn away. They are profit driven not
> client care driven. The more premiums and the less actual healthcare,
> the more profits.
Yup...fighting to get one paid right now. Again...what's your point?
>
>>The harder you work...the more you can afford. Some people drive Chevys
>>and are perfectly happy doing so...until they see someone drive by in a
>>Lotus. Then they want the Lotus. They have a choice...they can get a
>>better paying job (maybe go to college and get a degree that access that
>>better job), they can sit on the side of the road and bitch about not
>>having what the rich guy has...or they can vote Democrat and hope that
>>Hillary gives them a Lotus for all their hard work at the polls.
>>
> Meaningless drivel. Open your eyes. Many people are paying out the
> ass for expensive healthcare premiums. When they finally put in that
> claim, they are turned down by someone who only cares about the
> bottom line and not about the client who has dutifully paid in for
> years. Yes, some healthcare is experimental and some procedures
> are very new. Wait until you are in the same situation and see
> how quickly your views change. How high are your premiums?
Last month I paid $68,684.oo (my share) Again...what's your point?
Nate
Lon VanOstran
Please provide an example of me suggesting that someone has "a closed mind".
Never mind. That would require a positive IQ, and that's something
you've never displayed.
The truth is that I would suggest that some idiots (like you) have such
an OPEN mind that they can't contain anything resembling an idea, or fact.
Lon
Al Balmer
<rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
>> Yep. However, we don't all agree about how far this process should go,
>> or how much of the taking and giving should be the province of the
>> Federal government. I prefer to minimize it, Hillary prefers to
>> maximize it. That may be because she wants the power to control it,
>> and I don't want her to have the power to control me.
>
>But,...if the gov't. now takes from those who have and, by
>spreading the spending even in areas that have less (such as
>rural areas), then are we now under a socialist system?
Yes, to some extent. Note that I do not say that the status quo is a
good thing.
There are certain duties that the federal government must handle, by
their very nature. Nation-to-nation negotiations, protection of our
borders, perhaps other national interests abroad, etc. But what is the
*federal* government doing with old age pensions, health care, and the
like?
> We
>are taking from tax rich areas and giving to tax poor areas,
>which is the basis for letting the gov't. do this.
An excellent question. In fact, this is the very question that I
thought Libertarians campaigned on - the premise that the government
does not have such a basis.
In particular, I thought the Libertarian party was very much against
Hillary's national health care plan, and in fact, was in favor of
disbanding most of the current federal health care system in favor of
helping people help themselves through MSAs and reduced taxes.
>
>>>Using your definition, if taking from the rich and giving to
>>>the poor is socialism, then what is the system we have now
>>>called (taking from the middle class and giving to the rich)?
>>
>>
>> I call it fictitious. Check the IRS statistics sometime. You'll find
>> them enlightening.
>
>OK that is another discussion, so let me rephrase the
>question; What is the system called whereby we take from
>everyone and make our children pay for it?
That's not rephrasing, that's an entirely different question. It does
*need* rephrasing, though, since it doesn't make sense as written.
GBinNC
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>> It's like the ones here who complain about it when somebody calls
>> President Bush an unflattering name but routinely refer to President
>> Clinton as "anklepants."
>> GB in NC
>Why would you people consider "Anklepants" an insult?
It has to do with a lack of respect for the office of the President --
and a lack of class on the part of the person using it.
>You've never stopped defending his behavior.
Ease up, Lon. The last time you accused me of defending Clinton, I
protested and said that I thought in his personal life he was a
sleazeball.
And after you did some research, you realized you were wrong and
apologized. Wanna go two for two?
GB in NC
JanO...@aol.com
> JanOrm...@aol.com wrote:
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > At "My/Our ILK LODGE" we serve tasty drinks and
> > a fine BBQ Dinner. Puts one hell of a like minded
> > smile on our ilk mutts.
> > :) <pccg>
>
> > Jan Eric Orme
> > "Private Order Of Like Minded ILK"
>
> Do you serve barbecue ilk? No matter how you cook it, it
> always tastes the same.
>
> :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yep! Dead Chicken or whatever.
Down at the Lodge wilst tipping a few "Cool Ones"
and some BBQ Ilk the Bros are likely to Burp while
dis~cuss~ing Politics and such. And since it's Politics,
ithe burp comes out as (BILK).
Jan Eric Orme
altar nospam
<nsaptaem...@nsvpbaemll.net> wrote:
>
><al...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:hl90f3posnjv7efi7...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:33:23 GMT, Al Balmer <alba...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>The failed attempt only
>>>exposes Snopes' own political bias.
>>
>> Now that's funny! Snopes has a political bias...... yeah, right.
>>
>> Watch for the black helicopters, they could swoop in at any moment...
>>
>> Tom
>
>Show me something that leans to conservative ways of thought on a Snopes.com
>url.
>
>Nate
That's just stupid. Why would they lean ANY way?
Tom
altar nospam
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>al...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>>>Fair, yeah. But a waste of your time.
>>>
>>>Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
>>>up and slammed shut.
>>>
>>>GB in NC
>>
>>
>> It was only my intent to bring fairness and balance to the table.
>> Not the Fox news version.......
>>
>> Tom
>
>Just what we've come to expect. When BOTH side of an issue are
>presented, you lefties bitch about it being a "Fox news version", as
>though that's in insult. Don't you just hate it when both sides of an
>issue are presented? LOL
>
>Lon
I presented a link (Snopes) which gave the facts. I got a little swipe
at Fox news in the process. What part of "facts" presented by Snopes
don't you like? Or was it the swipe at Fox news you didn't like?
Tom
altar nospam
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>When CNN starts presenting both sides of the issues, I'll stop calling
>them the "Communist News Network."
>
>Lon
Then you should have stopped calling them that long ago.
Tom
altar nospam
I believe he was calling YOUR mind slammed shut.
Tom
altar nospam
>TA:
>>For accuracy,
>>
>>http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp
>>
>>Just to be fair.
>
>IAnyone who thinks Snopes is "fair" on this issue, is either
>hopelessly biased or has terrible reading comprehension.
Where do you come up with this imaginary tripe?
>
>Despite Snopes' transparent attempt to put a moderate face on the
>matter, all they accomplished was to make it clearer than ever that
>the quoted remarks were not only paraphrased from the Communist
>Manifesto, but were NOT out of context!
Speaking of reading comprehension, there you have it folks.
>I can hardly believe that any reasonably well-informed adult can
>read/hear such statements and not be alarmed at the possibility that
>this socialist extremist is actually being considered as presidential
>material!
>
>Will
You wouldn't know a "reasonably well-informed adult" if it bit you in
the ass.
You are neither reasonable, informed, or an adult.
Just FTR, I am not a Hillary supporter, but fair is fair, and you
don't even come close.
Tom
Mike Hendrix
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>al...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>> I have a new perspective on all those here, right or left, who have
>> been defined as such.
>
>We all define ourselves with that which we post, no matter who howls
>which way, when we post it.
>
>The man who always argues against the Conservatives and Libertarians,
>defines himself as leaning to the left, no matter how much he protests
>the labels which come with that lean.
>
>Lon
-----------------------------------------
Hey Lonnie, are you neo cons ready to admit that Iraq is about oil or
are you still kidding yourself?
mike
--
altar nospam
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>al...@nospam.net wrote:
>
>
>> I have a new perspective on all those here, right or left, who have
>> been defined as such.
>
>We all define ourselves with that which we post, no matter who howls
>which way, when we post it.
No, we don't. For the most part, we are defined by others who read
those posts, and then translate their views into a label which they
tag onto someone.
>The man who always argues against the Conservatives and Libertarians,
>defines himself as leaning to the left, no matter how much he protests
>the labels which come with that lean.
>
>Lon
He freely says that he leans left. I happen to know that he has a few
conservative thoughts as well.
It is the derogatory labels (Socialist, Communist, right wing wacko,
etc.) labels that I am referring to. Please notice that I included
myself in those derogatory remarks.
I came away with a resolve to not do that, to the best of my ability,
anymore.
Lean left, lean right, centrist, Conservative, and Liberal are in wide
usage, and are acceptable to most.
The fact is, most were represented there, and we got along
wonderfully.
Life is a learning process, and I learned something valuable. If I
were to camp out with you, I would probably learn even more.<g>
Tom
Mike Hendrix
wrote:
Yea, like a steel trap.
Rusted shut.
mike
--
Mike Hendrix
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>Don Lampson wrote:
>
>> I can hardly wait until someone else gets his / her keister in the
>> oval office, just to hear the howling from the usual dolts of RORT!
>> The same folks who get after others for not backing the Prez, and
>> "hating" Bush, will be writing the same stuff they now claim is
>> "unpatriotic"!
>> I hope someone saves the quotes to see how the right wingers explain
>> why it will be different then! HawHawHaw!
>
>Wrong, dimwit. I'll be on America's side in every war, no matter which
>party is in office. Unlike you, I wouldn't sell America down the river
>to get my party back in power.
>
>Lon
------------------------------------
Lon, where were you when it was your time to be in the military?
Sometimes, you are all mouth.
mike
--
Lon VanOstran
I long ago retracted that apology since you've been attacking anyone who
has anything negative to say about him. IMHO, that's defending him.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
>>>
>>>It was only my intent to bring fairness and balance to the table.
>>>Not the Fox news version.......
>>>
>>>Tom
>>
>>Just what we've come to expect. When BOTH side of an issue are
>>presented, you lefties bitch about it being a "Fox news version", as
>>though that's in insult. Don't you just hate it when both sides of an
>>issue are presented? LOL
>>
>>Lon
>
>
> I presented a link (Snopes) which gave the facts. I got a little swipe
> at Fox news in the process. What part of "facts" presented by Snopes
> don't you like? Or was it the swipe at Fox news you didn't like?
>
> Tom
What part of my post didn't you understand, and why did you find it
difficult?
If I had a problem with Snopes, I would have written something about
Snopes. Read it again and see if you can find anything about Snopes in
there. Damn! No wonder you are a Liberal. <g>
Lon
Lon VanOstran
Because everyone does.
Lon
Lon VanOstran
Maybe he should have written something which implied or said that, then.
I can only deal with what is written. I'm not a mind reader like you.
Lon
Mike Hendrix
Answer: That is the Bush, Cheney plan.
The one Greenspan recently wrote about.
mike
--
GBinNC
Just to clear things up -- here's what I wrote:
>Their ilk either won't read it or won't believe it. Their minds are made
>up and slammed shut.
And yes, I was of course referring to Lon and his ilk.
GB in NC
altar nospam
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
>> That's just stupid. Why would they lean ANY way?
>>
>> Tom
>
>Because everyone does.
>
>Lon
I doubt that.
Tom
altar nospam
Aha! Got it! My little fun poke at Fox. And your fun retort. Got it.
Good retort, BTW.
Next time I'll read slower. (Us Liberals need to read what
Conservatives write just a little more slowly...)<g>
Tom
altar nospam
<RV...@stopspamwmconnect.com> wrote:
I forgot. Us Liberals are pretty good at that.<g>
Tom
Robert Allison
> "Robert Allison" <rims...@spamless.net> wrote
>
>>Bruce S wrote:
>>
>>>But when you say you want to take the profit out of business, or that
>>>capitalism has failed, it does not matter who you are saying it to.
>>>those are both socialist statements.
>>>
>>>Bruce
>>
>>What about when you say: Capitalism has failed... to make a difference in
>>the number of abortions.
>>
>>Does it sound bad then?
>>
>>If she had said that she wanted to take the profit out of business, then
>>that would be bad.
>>
>>Can you show me where she said that?
>
>
> I don't have it handy (and don't care enough to look for it now), but I
> watched the news clip of Hillary saying that the profit had to be taken from
> the oil companies. If she believes that one industry should be deprived of
> its profits, I can't see how any are safe.
>
> Bruce
Even if she said that profit had to be taken from the oil
companies (and I don't think she would say even that) that is
alot different from her saying that she wants to take profit
out of business. That implies that she wants to make all
companies non-profit.
I am not here to defend Clinton. But if we are going to talk
about her and the other candidates, at least be accurate.
We could get alot further in discussions about policy, what
works and what doesn't, etc. if we don't constantly argue
about whether someone said something or not. We are talking
about form instead of substance.
I prefer substance.
The politicians themselves would love for us to argue
endlessly about who said what and what it means, rather than
talk about the things that threaten our country and our
livelihoods. If we do that, then we might start asking some
really hard questions.
Let me start:
What five things do you think the next president should
concentrate on the most?
Here is my list (in no particular order);
Health care
Immigration
Tax structure
Our relationship with Islamic countries
An energy plan
--
Robert Allison
Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX
Robert Allison
<Snippage>>
>
> But that is not what she said...nor what Snopes said she said.. You're
> maiing shit up to keep from admitting you're wrong. Read the Snopes
> article and then post something relevent. Jeeze this is a tough crowd.
>
> Nate
This is the transcript of the question and the answer:
[Begin quoted text]
REVEREND JOEL C. HUNTER, NORTHLAND, A CHURCH DISTRIBUTED:
Hi, Senator Clinton.
Abortion continues to be one of the most hurtful and divisive
facts of our nation. I come from the part of the faith
community that is very strongly pro-life. I know you're
pro-choice, but you have indicated that you would like to
reduce the number of abortions.
Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life
camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in
mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero?
CLINTON: Yes. Yes.
And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out
about over the last many years, going back, really, at least
15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and
rare. And, by rare, I mean rare.
And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-
choice communities have not really been willing to find much
common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of
our parts, because, for me...
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: ... there are many opportunities to assist young
people to make responsible decisions.
There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that
could be done through churches, through schools, through so
much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding
of reaching people where they are today.
We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced
by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who
have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right
decisions to make.
And I personally believe that the adult society has failed
those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our
churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think
the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed.
We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves
morally....
[End quoted text]
Sure sounds to me like she said that the free market has
failed to make abortions more rare.
Jim Waugh
>
> Why do you think Hillary is not supporting free healthcare? Why do you
> think she keeps talking about INSURING the Americans? Becasue she knows
> they system relys on wealth.
>
She's not supporting it because she took a shitpot of money
from the Pharma and Healthcare companies. She was paid off.
That's one of the reasons I don't support her. Who was it
that said a good politician is one that stay's bought? I don't
think she's going far enough by a long shot.
Jim W
Deming
Robert Allison
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:41:39 GMT, Robert Allison
> <rims...@spamless.net> wrote:
> (regarding the definition of "ilk")
>
>>You never know who is lurking that is new.
>
>
> Most of the new people speak and understand English. It's not like
> it's a big word.
>
Yes, but would they understand that you are using it as a
compliment?
Jim Waugh
>> I believe he was calling YOUR mind slammed shut.
>> Tom
>
> Maybe he should have written something which implied or said that, then.
> I can only deal with what is written. I'm not a mind reader like you.
>
> Lon
Yo, Lonnie, your mind is slammed so tight is like "trying to
get a greased pin out of his butt". Geez, I've been waiting
for a chance to use that one. Thanks, LK. Oh, and you have
a closed mind, just so you don't have to be a mind reader.
Jim W
Deming