Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Frank - trip
80 views
Skip to first unread message
Uncle Sky
Jul 31, 2013, 7:20:06 PM7/31/13
to
I see you posting over in A C. Does that mean you're back from your trip?
What happened?
--
Uncle Sky
What happened?
--
Uncle Sky
F. Brown
Aug 1, 2013, 12:43:20 PM8/1/13
to
"Uncle Sky" <Uncl...@home.alone.invalid> wrote in message
news:20130731192006.367$O...@newsreader.com...
Frank McCoy
Aug 1, 2013, 5:40:36 PM8/1/13
to
Uncle Sky<Uncl...@home.alone.invalid> wrote:
>I see you posting over in A C. Does that mean you're back from your trip?
>
>What happened?
I8 months, plus two years probation.
>I see you posting over in A C. Does that mean you're back from your trip?
>
>What happened?
I'm back home; but supposed to turn myself in when told-to.
I'm thinking that will be a minimu of about 20 days, after:
1. The judge writes up the official sentencing-order.
2. My Defense-team files official notice-of-appeal.
3. The Prosecution files *their* notice-of-appeal, both of the
sentence (They, of course, want it higher.) and response-to
OUR appeal.
#1 can take ... Who knows?
#2 We have up to 14 days to file an appeal ... supposedly after the
judge writes his ruling down. That's not completely clear; but ....
#3 The Prosecution has another 14 days to object after we do.
I'm not really clear on what additions or subtractions would happen
because-of or in-spite-of the appeals.
I'm *working* on getting ready.
They, of course, didn't pay my way back.
To get enough money to get home, I borrowed-against bills I'm supposed
to be paying right about now. ;-{
Otherwise, my only recourse would be to turn myself in down there.
THAT would have been a complete disaster.
At least THIS way I can shut down the house when I leave; draining the
water out of the tanks and plumbing before shutting the heat off.
I'll have to take the three cats to the pound ("Animal Shelter"), I
guess. Anybody want a real NICE Kitty-Cat?
I'm going to have to tell my credit-card companies that I just won't
be able to pay any more because I'm not going to have any income to
pay out-of. The government will take that and use it to support and
house me. At least I won't have to continue paying my atrocious
medical-insurance and medicine-bills.
I'm thinking that 18 months ain't all that bad ... for ME anyway.
Probably the four main things that bother me are, in diminishing-order
of bother:
That poor kitty-cat. SHE never did anything to deserve this. ;-{
The really ROTTEN selection of reading-material in there. Really BAD!
My wife not having a First-Responder once I leave.
Losing the house and anything in it I can't manage to store somewhere.
Still, I pretty much *volunteered* for all this; so I can't really
complain ... much anyway. It could have been MUCH worse.
Eventually (Who knows how long?) Judge Sands' decision will be out
there, on-line, for anybody who wants to look it up.
In the meantime: I have not the foggiest notion about what, when,
where, and how-much the appeals-process will affect all this.
Right now I'm going through my main computer and laptop, removing any
sex-stories on them, including most-especially my own. The judge
ruled that I wasn't to have any "obscene material" on my computer, and
my lawyer said, "Yes, that DOES include the stories I am/are/was using
for my defense." Rats. So, off they come. It's simply *amazing* how
scattered around the computer they somehow got!
Mainly finished cleaning up my main computer last night ... at about
4:30 in the morning after working on the job all day long.
I didn't want to just reformat the drive and start over. THAT usually
takes a *week* or more. But, with good software tools, I'm doing OK.
The laptop this morning went a LOT easier; since I knew mostly where
to look and what to delete from what I did on the main desktop
computer.
I'm starting on my wife's computer next; even though I don't expect to
find a single thing THERE; as I never put anything on, or used it for
much of anything at all. Shouldn't BE anything there.
Went to play Bridge this afternoon.
I'm supposed to take the wife out to a wake of one of he relatives
(cousin, I believe). Only, she doesn't answer the telephone.
Ah well, the funeral is tomorrow; so she can go there, if necessary.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
F. Brown
Aug 2, 2013, 8:50:14 AM8/2/13
to
"Frank McCoy" <mcc...@millcomm.com> wrote in message
news:ncjlv812mb9emua2t...@4ax.com...
depends upon the appellate court deciding on the likelihood of your
appeal being successful.
Frank McCoy
Aug 2, 2013, 10:02:15 AM8/2/13
to
>Here's hoping you can stay free pending your appeal. I believe that
>depends upon the appellate court deciding on the likelihood of your
>appeal being successful.
>
That's a thought. Thanks.
>depends upon the appellate court deciding on the likelihood of your
>appeal being successful.
>
Uncle Sky
Aug 2, 2013, 10:49:53 AM8/2/13
to
--
Uncle Sky
Frank McCoy
Aug 2, 2013, 5:49:51 PM8/2/13
to
The Government quite-obviously thinks I don't have much of a chance on
appeal, or they wouldn't have spent all that (rather "obscene") amount
of money bringing and prosecuting the case.
F. Brown
Aug 3, 2013, 9:18:55 AM8/3/13
to
news:h8aov8he38ga7ll7l...@4ax.com...
Possibly, but then why did Judge Sands take 3-1/2 years to release his
ruling?
I said it before, he probably hoped at your age you'd die first. Spoilsport.
:))
I find it hard to believe that any work has no social redeeming value, no
matter
how offensive it may be to some people.
It always seemed to me that that Supreme Court standard was very broad.
You might have been better off with a jury trial, they would have voted to
convict,
but you could have gotten the appeals process started much sooner.
I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
censorship
and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
contain the
phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think that
the
appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
ruling?
I said it before, he probably hoped at your age you'd die first. Spoilsport.
:))
I find it hard to believe that any work has no social redeeming value, no
matter
how offensive it may be to some people.
It always seemed to me that that Supreme Court standard was very broad.
You might have been better off with a jury trial, they would have voted to
convict,
but you could have gotten the appeals process started much sooner.
I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
censorship
and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
contain the
phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think that
the
appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
Justin Thyme
Aug 3, 2013, 12:49:26 PM8/3/13
to
On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:18:55 -0400, "F. Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com>
wrote:
>I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
>censorship
>and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
>contain the
>phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think that
>the
>appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
>
Seems to me that the Bush court has the view that free speach only
applies to corporations.
wrote:
>I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
>censorship
>and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
>contain the
>phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think that
>the
>appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
>
applies to corporations.
Frank McCoy
Aug 3, 2013, 1:25:07 PM8/3/13
to
party in-power at the moment, of course.
F. Brown
Aug 17, 2013, 8:21:04 AM8/17/13
to
news:96fqv850qadfaemhu...@4ax.com...
Which is why the Citizens United decision infuriates them, although they
incorrectly blame Citizens for lifting the monetary restrictions imposed
by McCain-Feingold. Speech Now Org sued the FEC and won over those
restrictions. While Citizens was decided by SCOTUS, Speech Now
ended at the DC appellate court, the Justice Dept deciding not to appeal.
incorrectly blame Citizens for lifting the monetary restrictions imposed
by McCain-Feingold. Speech Now Org sued the FEC and won over those
restrictions. While Citizens was decided by SCOTUS, Speech Now
ended at the DC appellate court, the Justice Dept deciding not to appeal.
Frank McCoy
Aug 17, 2013, 11:18:15 AM8/17/13
to
spending by corporations FAVORS by huge amounts the party and people
in-power at the moment, and NOT those trying to kick the current SOB's
out!
It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
places.
Thus your argument fails.
It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
backfired on the Republicans.
That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
those same rules?
Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!
Tim Merrigan
Aug 17, 2013, 7:41:30 PM8/17/13
to
On Sat, 17 Aug 2013 10:18:15 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
wrote:
On that note, I've always, well since I've noticed, felt it ironic
that the first president presidential term limits might have effected,
the next president after FDR likely to have won a third term, was
Eisenhower, a Republican.
wrote:
that the first president presidential term limits might have effected,
the next president after FDR likely to have won a third term, was
Eisenhower, a Republican.
Frank McCoy
Aug 17, 2013, 9:38:41 PM8/17/13
to
F. Brown
Aug 18, 2013, 9:08:29 AM8/18/13
to
news:se4v09pscsrdedo7d...@4ax.com...
You misunderstand the definition of a "corporation" as applied in Citizens.
You and others see "corporations" as GM, AT&T, Microsoft etc, Political
Action Committes formed by individual voters like Citizens United
incorporate
for legal protection. If they don't incorporate the individual donors would
most likely face SLAP suits by their political opponents in an attempt to
silence them.
Big corporations like GM etc have always been able to donate directly and
indirectly to political candidates. What they were prohibited from doing was
engaging in "electioneering", paying for advertising directly advocating for
or against a political candidate. This is known as "corporate independent
expenditures", a form of political free speech which the government is
prohibited from restricting under the First Amendment.
Corporations, big and small, are comprised of individual investors, share
holders, who while they may be members of a group still ahe the right of
political free speech.
> It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
> especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
> places.
>
> Thus your argument fails.
Fails, really? Then explain why the Democrats lost so heavily in both
state legislative and Congressional elections in 2010. Incumbents were
slaughtered. mainly due to the new voter PACs getting their message
out to the public.
> It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
> time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
> THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
Wrong. Citizens was not decided until January 21, 2010. Bush left office in
January 2009.
> NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
> backfired on the Republicans.
How do you reach that conclusion? Obama stayed in office through dirty
politics and the main stream media being an arm of the White House and
Democrat propaganda machine.
> That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
> current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
> complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
> rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
> the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
> those same rules?
>
> Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
Yeah, you should hear all the Democrat whining and crying in NC since
the Republicans captured both the Governor's office and both houses of
the state legislature. The Dems gerrymandered voting districts to favor
Dems for decades, now when the Repubs do it, it's "dirty politics."
You and others see "corporations" as GM, AT&T, Microsoft etc, Political
Action Committes formed by individual voters like Citizens United
incorporate
for legal protection. If they don't incorporate the individual donors would
most likely face SLAP suits by their political opponents in an attempt to
silence them.
Big corporations like GM etc have always been able to donate directly and
indirectly to political candidates. What they were prohibited from doing was
engaging in "electioneering", paying for advertising directly advocating for
or against a political candidate. This is known as "corporate independent
expenditures", a form of political free speech which the government is
prohibited from restricting under the First Amendment.
Corporations, big and small, are comprised of individual investors, share
holders, who while they may be members of a group still ahe the right of
political free speech.
> It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
> especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
> places.
>
> Thus your argument fails.
state legislative and Congressional elections in 2010. Incumbents were
slaughtered. mainly due to the new voter PACs getting their message
out to the public.
> It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
> time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
> THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
January 2009.
> NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
> backfired on the Republicans.
politics and the main stream media being an arm of the White House and
Democrat propaganda machine.
> That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
> current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
> complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
> rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
> the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
> those same rules?
>
> Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
the Republicans captured both the Governor's office and both houses of
the state legislature. The Dems gerrymandered voting districts to favor
Dems for decades, now when the Repubs do it, it's "dirty politics."
Oglethorpe
Aug 18, 2013, 9:52:30 PM8/18/13
to
news:se4v09pscsrdedo7d...@4ax.com...
> / ' / T
over decades of innocent pictures of nudist children? This goes way beyond
the Bush administration. There's a decades long war on free speech by people
who absolutely lose it over the idea of children involved in sex. This is
what the Frank McCoy case is about. My half brother had a real bad breakup
weith a girlfriend and was crying. Our 10 year olds (at the time) niece got
ahold of him and gave him a hand job. He didn't ask for it but let it
happen. Evidently, she had some experience at it. He made the mistake of
telling his sister who was also going through bad break up. Next thing you
know he's worst than that Castro dude in Ohio (although this happened nearly
20 years ago). The opportunist DA went down hard. Our parents couldn't
afford much in the way of attorneys. My hal brother was advised to take a
plea deal for 10 years and he'd be able to get on with his life when he got
out. So they brought him the plea papers. THe DA had him down for forcible
vaginal rapr on a child under 12. My half brother refuse to sign it because
he didn't do that. So the DA told him he's fix that but if he didn't sign
offg and they went to trial he'd see to it my half brother would do at least
20 years. The DA changed the plea deal to forceable anal rape of a child
under 12. Myu half brother's attorney advised him to take the deal. So he
did. While he was in all these idotic sex offender registry laws got passed.
They don't do a fucking thing to protect children. They're nothing but
unconstitutional ex post facto laws.
The fact is: children are having sex. Another fact: Nothing FRank McCoy did
harmed any children. Boils down to there are people who are evil who cannot
deal with anything having to do with sex and children. They're insane and
they have the power to do these things so they do them.
So we have other cases like a pregnant 12 year old girl and her 12 year old
boyfriend charged for having sex with a child 12 or under for having sex
with each other and both facxing life on the sex offender registries and the
case of the 16 year old and 14 year old girls who were having a passionate
sexial affair. As soon as the 16 year old turned 17 the 14 year old's
vindictive parents had yer arrested for lewd and lasivious acts on a child
under 16.
What crap. It hurts people. It destroys families. But there are a few chinks
in the wall showing.
> ,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Wasn't it Janet Reno who persecuted a world famous naturalist photographer
> (_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
over decades of innocent pictures of nudist children? This goes way beyond
the Bush administration. There's a decades long war on free speech by people
who absolutely lose it over the idea of children involved in sex. This is
what the Frank McCoy case is about. My half brother had a real bad breakup
weith a girlfriend and was crying. Our 10 year olds (at the time) niece got
ahold of him and gave him a hand job. He didn't ask for it but let it
happen. Evidently, she had some experience at it. He made the mistake of
telling his sister who was also going through bad break up. Next thing you
know he's worst than that Castro dude in Ohio (although this happened nearly
20 years ago). The opportunist DA went down hard. Our parents couldn't
afford much in the way of attorneys. My hal brother was advised to take a
plea deal for 10 years and he'd be able to get on with his life when he got
out. So they brought him the plea papers. THe DA had him down for forcible
vaginal rapr on a child under 12. My half brother refuse to sign it because
he didn't do that. So the DA told him he's fix that but if he didn't sign
offg and they went to trial he'd see to it my half brother would do at least
20 years. The DA changed the plea deal to forceable anal rape of a child
under 12. Myu half brother's attorney advised him to take the deal. So he
did. While he was in all these idotic sex offender registry laws got passed.
They don't do a fucking thing to protect children. They're nothing but
unconstitutional ex post facto laws.
The fact is: children are having sex. Another fact: Nothing FRank McCoy did
harmed any children. Boils down to there are people who are evil who cannot
deal with anything having to do with sex and children. They're insane and
they have the power to do these things so they do them.
So we have other cases like a pregnant 12 year old girl and her 12 year old
boyfriend charged for having sex with a child 12 or under for having sex
with each other and both facxing life on the sex offender registries and the
case of the 16 year old and 14 year old girls who were having a passionate
sexial affair. As soon as the 16 year old turned 17 the 14 year old's
vindictive parents had yer arrested for lewd and lasivious acts on a child
under 16.
What crap. It hurts people. It destroys families. But there are a few chinks
in the wall showing.
Oglethorpe
Aug 18, 2013, 10:09:35 PM8/18/13
to
"F. Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:520f6aad$0$4307$bb4e...@newscene.com...
corner. He's done more damage to America than any president since FDR.
>
>> --
>> _____
>> / ' / T
>> --
>> _____
>> / ' / T
Oglethorpe
Aug 18, 2013, 10:12:36 PM8/18/13
to
news:ac901956siiej0n41...@4ax.com...
Eisenhower was okay. He saw the worth in a national highway sytem and is the
father of the Interstates.
father of the Interstates.
> --
> _____
> / ' / T
> _____
> / ' / T
Oglethorpe
Aug 18, 2013, 10:16:25 PM8/18/13
to
news:5210c748$0$32476$bb4e...@newscene.com...
YUP. What so many forget is: The Democratic National Committee is
incorporated. The Democrats hate "right wing" PACS but love left wing PACS.
he Koch brothers are evil but George Soros is not.
>
>> The soapbox is empty.
>> NEXT!
>>
>> --
>> _____
>> / ' / T
incorporated. The Democrats hate "right wing" PACS but love left wing PACS.
he Koch brothers are evil but George Soros is not.
>
>> The soapbox is empty.
>> NEXT!
>>
>> --
>> _____
Frank McCoy
Aug 19, 2013, 11:21:52 AM8/19/13
to
(Freeway System mainly, in the West).
He was our top general; and the system was built for the possibility
of war ... To be able to get stuff needed from one part of the country
to the other in a hurry; and not just by railroad.
The really USEFUL benefits of such a system didn't really become
apparent until we HAD them for a while.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
Frank McCoy
Aug 19, 2013, 11:27:50 AM8/19/13
to
"F. Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Thus your argument fails.
>
>Fails, really? Then explain why the Democrats lost so heavily in both
>state legislative and Congressional elections in 2010. Incumbents were
>slaughtered. mainly due to the new voter PACs getting their message
>out to the public.
Losing has little to do with how much money is raised.
>> Thus your argument fails.
>
>Fails, really? Then explain why the Democrats lost so heavily in both
>state legislative and Congressional elections in 2010. Incumbents were
>slaughtered. mainly due to the new voter PACs getting their message
>out to the public.
As politicians have found out time and again.
It's really HARD to buy an election.
If people are pissed at government or the current incumbent, then
they'll toss the old bum out and elect a new bum.
Still, statistically, incumbents TEND to get re-elected.
That's WHY it's easier for them to raise campaign cash.
The corporations figure (more often rightly than wrong) that the
present guy will get re-elected ... and will *remember* who paid
brib\h\h\h\h into his campaign at election time.
However, most big corporations ALSO tend to throw much smaller amounts
to the opponent ... because he/she just *might* get elected and have a
similar memory.
Frank McCoy
Aug 19, 2013, 11:28:36 AM8/19/13
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>YUP. What so many forget is: The Democratic National Committee is
>incorporated. The Democrats hate "right wing" PACS but love left wing PACS.
>he Koch brothers are evil but George Soros is not.
... and wice-worsa.
>YUP. What so many forget is: The Democratic National Committee is
>incorporated. The Democrats hate "right wing" PACS but love left wing PACS.
>he Koch brothers are evil but George Soros is not.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
F. Brown
Aug 19, 2013, 1:33:01 PM8/19/13
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:I_mdnYr7aO7M-YzP...@mchsi.com...
Obama lamanted the Citizens decision during his state of the union address
just
two days after it was released. He realized what the effect would be on the
2010 elections ahead of time. And it had a major effect, shifting the
balance of
power in state and national elections.
2014 is probably going to be a repeat with the Repubs taking the senate.
Oglethorpe
Aug 19, 2013, 10:43:58 PM8/19/13
to
news:521256d1$0$32490$bb4e...@newscene.com...
It's beginning to look that way. The Republican congress critters from both
houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
Tim Merrigan
Aug 19, 2013, 10:30:00 PM8/19/13
to
On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 10:21:52 -0500, Frank McCoy <mcc...@millcomm.com>
That, and he saw the autobaun.
Frank McCoy
Aug 19, 2013, 10:33:45 PM8/19/13
to
"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote:
>It's beginning to look that way. The Republican congress critters from both
>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
Doesn't mean that's what the majority of the PEOPLE want though.
>It's beginning to look that way. The Republican congress critters from both
>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
If it turns out that more people *support* "Obamacare"; then
Republicans fighting it could be another disaster for them.
By the time the next election rolls around, a LOT of people might get
scared of what will happen to THEM if the AFCA gets repealed.
The young and Republican who scream loudest (It's THEIR ox being
gored, after all) might just be swamped in the voting elders and
Democrats.
Remember FOX news claiming that Obama was going-to-be (and during the
election-night-reporting claimed had-been) thrown out.
Think about it.
If you listen ONLY to those of like-mind, then it's easy to convince
yourself that the people you hear are the huge majority.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
Frank McCoy
Aug 19, 2013, 10:35:49 PM8/19/13
to
F. Brown
Aug 20, 2013, 9:04:15 AM8/20/13
to
news:C5ednYr2Ev5OJo_P...@mchsi.com...
The Left claims the Tea Party is dead yet the various Tea Party
organizations
have just announced a multi-million dollar ad campaign directed at
incumbents
who favor funding ObamaCare. The ads will run until Sept 30th when Congress
has to pass a new budget either with or without funds for ObamaCare.
Seeing as how by September we will be getting into the 2014 election cycle,
many incumbents will be giving careful thought as to how they will vote.
organizations
have just announced a multi-million dollar ad campaign directed at
incumbents
who favor funding ObamaCare. The ads will run until Sept 30th when Congress
has to pass a new budget either with or without funds for ObamaCare.
Seeing as how by September we will be getting into the 2014 election cycle,
many incumbents will be giving careful thought as to how they will vote.
Message has been deleted
Frank McCoy
Aug 21, 2013, 4:21:10 PM8/21/13
to
Full Name <us...@example.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:43:58 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
>wrote:
>
>'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>
>http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>
>At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
>Kinzinger (R – Illinois) said that if Republicans choose to defund
>Obamacare in an upcoming vote, the party will lose control of the
>House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
>
>Kinzinger said, “Potentially there will be a collapse of will to keep
>the government shut down because soldiers are not getting paid and all
>this other stuff’s happening and we turn around and lose 10 to 20
>seats in 2014. And whether we win the battle or not, we’ve lost the
>war because Nancy Pelosi’s now speaker of the House.”
You left out this part:
:Kinzinger would have a good point, if the purpose of our Representatives
:was to get re-elected, but it’s not. We elect them in good faith that
:they will do what’s best for our country, not what they think will keep
:them in office.
Um ... Say what?
That may be what people ELECT them to do.
What Congresscritters ACTUALLY do ... is try to get re-elected.
Once again theory meets reality.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
>On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:43:58 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Republican congress critters from both
>>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
>>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
>
>Meanwhile..back in the real world.
>>The Republican congress critters from both
>>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
>>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
>
>
>'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>
>http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>
>At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
>Kinzinger (R – Illinois) said that if Republicans choose to defund
>Obamacare in an upcoming vote, the party will lose control of the
>House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
>
>Kinzinger said, “Potentially there will be a collapse of will to keep
>the government shut down because soldiers are not getting paid and all
>this other stuff’s happening and we turn around and lose 10 to 20
>seats in 2014. And whether we win the battle or not, we’ve lost the
>war because Nancy Pelosi’s now speaker of the House.”
You left out this part:
:Kinzinger would have a good point, if the purpose of our Representatives
:was to get re-elected, but it’s not. We elect them in good faith that
:they will do what’s best for our country, not what they think will keep
:them in office.
Um ... Say what?
That may be what people ELECT them to do.
What Congresscritters ACTUALLY do ... is try to get re-elected.
Once again theory meets reality.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
F. Brown
Aug 22, 2013, 12:06:23 PM8/22/13
to
"Full Name" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:6c1919pvlbgr6thkd...@4ax.com...
>
> You not going to gain shit,in fact you're losing the
> House.
>
> You do know satisfaction with Republicans is down to 8%?
Sez who, Chris Matthews? Bwahaaaaaa
>>The Republican congress critters from both
>>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to keep
>>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
>
> Meanwhile..back in the real world.
>
> 'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>
> At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
> Kinzinger (R - Illinois) said that if Republicans choose to defund
>
> 'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>
> At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
> Obamacare in an upcoming vote, the party will lose control of the
> House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
Just a RINO Republican who supports ObamaCare.
> House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
> Kinzinger said, "Potentially there will be a collapse of will to keep
> the government shut down because soldiers are not getting paid and all
> this other stuff's happening and we turn around and lose 10 to 20
> seats in 2014. And whether we win the battle or not, we've lost the
> war because Nancy Pelosi's now speaker of the House."
>
> If George Zimmerman's Jury Had Seen This Chilling Video, Would They Still
> Have Let Him Go Free?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>
>
> Those who were upset about the non-guilty verdict in this case thought
> that George Zimmerman should have never been able to walk free after
> killing an innocent teenager.
>
> Although the jury claimed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to put the
> man behind bars, the re-enactment of Trayvon's death, with real 9-11 audio
> from the night of his death, seems to tell a very different story.
A farce of a re-enactment.
"Let's make a video showing what we want people to believe happened.
The video carefully leaves out what is known to have happened, Martin
banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
Message has been deleted
F. Brown
Aug 25, 2013, 10:24:06 AM8/25/13
to
news:5kvd19103ula0v5i7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:06:23 -0400, "F. Brown"
> PEW , I believe.
> to be on the winning side in your ongoing civil war.
>
> The astronomical and futile waste of a LOT of money in the last
> campaign is neither forgotten nor forgiven.
>
> Do you think the donors have short memories and will throw good money
> after bad?
> walk?
>
> None was presented at the trial and no witness saw the slightest
> sign of any such thing.
>
> No blood was found on the sidewalk and there were no injuries
> consistent with such an event,anymore than there was any evidence of
> being punched in the nose 25-30 times.
>
> If you know of any feel free to produce it.
>
> There is a reason the jury said they allowed a murderer to walk free
> you know.
Here we go, revisionist history. The police photos of the back of
Zimmerman's
head and the blood on the sidewalk were prominently displayed in the
national
news. No one claimed Zimmerman was hit 25-30 times in the nose.
The evidence was there to convince a jury that Zimmerman had suffered
injuries at Martin's hands and had reasonable fear for his life, the
qualifications
that justified using lethal force to defend himself and justified a not
guilty verdict.
You can make all the claims to the contrary you want, the verdict is in, Not
Guilty,
and nothing you or anyone else can say will ever change it.
The Martin family's racism lawsuit is doomed to failure also.
A Federal judge just threw out the racism lawsuit against Paula Deen and the
Jackson suit against her collapsed and has been dismissed with prejudice,
that means it can never be brought to court again.
The same will happen with the Martin case.
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:06:23 -0400, "F. Brown"
>>
>>
>>>>The Republican congress critters from both
>>>>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to
>>>>keep
>>>>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile..back in the real world.
>>>
>>> 'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>>>
>>> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>>>
>>> At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
>>> Kinzinger (R - Illinois) said that if Republicans choose to defund
>>> Obamacare in an upcoming vote, the party will lose control of the
>>> House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
>>
>>Just a RINO Republican who supports ObamaCare.
>
> I won't intrude on your private grief but I suspect you are unlikely
>>
>>>>The Republican congress critters from both
>>>>houses are getting an earful from their constituents telling them to
>>>>keep
>>>>blocking Obana and to do anyting they can to stop "Obamacare".
>>>
>>> Meanwhile..back in the real world.
>>>
>>> 'If We Try To Defund Obamacare, We Lose The House Of Representatives'
>>>
>>> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/73877-watch-if-we-try-to-defund-obamacare-we-lose-the-house-of-representatives/
>>>
>>> At an Americans for Prosperity meeting in his district, Rep. Adam
>>> Kinzinger (R - Illinois) said that if Republicans choose to defund
>>> Obamacare in an upcoming vote, the party will lose control of the
>>> House of Representatives to the Democrats next year.
>>
>>Just a RINO Republican who supports ObamaCare.
>
> to be on the winning side in your ongoing civil war.
>
> The astronomical and futile waste of a LOT of money in the last
> campaign is neither forgotten nor forgiven.
>
> Do you think the donors have short memories and will throw good money
> after bad?
>
>>
>>> Kinzinger said, "Potentially there will be a collapse of will to keep
>>> the government shut down because soldiers are not getting paid and all
>>> this other stuff's happening and we turn around and lose 10 to 20
>>> seats in 2014. And whether we win the battle or not, we've lost the
>>> war because Nancy Pelosi's now speaker of the House."
>>> --
>>>
>>> If George Zimmerman's Jury Had Seen This Chilling Video, Would They
>>> Still
>>> Have Let Him Go Free?
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>>>
>>>
>>> Those who were upset about the non-guilty verdict in this case thought
>>> that George Zimmerman should have never been able to walk free after
>>> killing an innocent teenager.
>>>
>>> Although the jury claimed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to put
>>> the
>>> man behind bars, the re-enactment of Trayvon's death, with real 9-11
>>> audio
>>> from the night of his death, seems to tell a very different story.
>>
>>A farce of a re-enactment.
>>"Let's make a video showing what we want people to believe happened.
>>The video carefully leaves out what is known to have happened, Martin
>>banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
>
> You know of some evidence of Zimmerman's head being banged on the side
>>
>>> Kinzinger said, "Potentially there will be a collapse of will to keep
>>> the government shut down because soldiers are not getting paid and all
>>> this other stuff's happening and we turn around and lose 10 to 20
>>> seats in 2014. And whether we win the battle or not, we've lost the
>>> war because Nancy Pelosi's now speaker of the House."
>>> --
>>>
>>> If George Zimmerman's Jury Had Seen This Chilling Video, Would They
>>> Still
>>> Have Let Him Go Free?
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>>>
>>>
>>> Those who were upset about the non-guilty verdict in this case thought
>>> that George Zimmerman should have never been able to walk free after
>>> killing an innocent teenager.
>>>
>>> Although the jury claimed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to put
>>> the
>>> man behind bars, the re-enactment of Trayvon's death, with real 9-11
>>> audio
>>> from the night of his death, seems to tell a very different story.
>>
>>A farce of a re-enactment.
>>"Let's make a video showing what we want people to believe happened.
>>The video carefully leaves out what is known to have happened, Martin
>>banging Zimmerman's head on the sidewalk.
>
> walk?
>
> None was presented at the trial and no witness saw the slightest
> sign of any such thing.
>
> No blood was found on the sidewalk and there were no injuries
> consistent with such an event,anymore than there was any evidence of
> being punched in the nose 25-30 times.
>
> If you know of any feel free to produce it.
>
> There is a reason the jury said they allowed a murderer to walk free
> you know.
Here we go, revisionist history. The police photos of the back of
Zimmerman's
head and the blood on the sidewalk were prominently displayed in the
national
news. No one claimed Zimmerman was hit 25-30 times in the nose.
The evidence was there to convince a jury that Zimmerman had suffered
injuries at Martin's hands and had reasonable fear for his life, the
qualifications
that justified using lethal force to defend himself and justified a not
guilty verdict.
You can make all the claims to the contrary you want, the verdict is in, Not
Guilty,
and nothing you or anyone else can say will ever change it.
The Martin family's racism lawsuit is doomed to failure also.
A Federal judge just threw out the racism lawsuit against Paula Deen and the
Jackson suit against her collapsed and has been dismissed with prejudice,
that means it can never be brought to court again.
The same will happen with the Martin case.
Message has been deleted
F. Brown
Aug 26, 2013, 9:45:09 AM8/26/13
to
news:da5m19tuf161675pf...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:24:06 -0400, "F. Brown"
The court would not have allowed the video because it had no relevance to
what actually happened. Re-creations have to be based on provable facts,
not suppositions staged in such a way as to slant what actually happened.
If the jury had found reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had acted in self
defense they would have found him guilty.
The only "technicality" was that they found him not guilty beyond a
reasonable
doubt.
Any juror heming and hawing about how the verdict was reached is probably
worried about his or her safety from the Martin crowd.
> Indeed the photos of Zimmerman were. No effort was spared and new
> barriers broken in the use of social media to poison the jury pool.
>
> However no medical treatment was ever considered necessary for the two
> scratches and the Medical Examiner at the trial described them as
> insignificant.
>
> There was never a shred of evidence produced for Zimmerman's fairy
> story of a murderous attack by the schoolboy that necessitated
> shooting him through the heart.
> No trace of blood was found on the sidewalk despite a thorough search
> by the Forensics team.
>
> The EMTs , Physician' Assistant he got a sick note from and the
> Medical Examiner found no injuries consistent with the attack
> Zimmerman claimed.
> garbage.
>
> https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025
>
> Serino: OK. Another thing too as far as 25 and 30 punches, I've
> consulted with a lot of people, not quite consistent with your
> injuries. You do have injuries, however. Um, how did he manage to bang
> your head, and, OK, correct me if I misunderstood what you said here
> as far as slamming the head into the concrete. Into the cement thing.
> How'd he do that?
>
> Zimmerman: I was on my back.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: when he first punched me. I don't know if I immediately
> fell down, he threw me down. I was stumbling, I ended up on my back.
>
> Serino: Um hum.
>
> Zimmerman: And he was on top of me, mounted.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: And he kept punching me, and then, when I started yelling
> for help, that's when he grabbed my head and started to slam it.
>
> Serino: Grabbed your head by your ears, by.hard to say?
>
> Zimmerman: I don't remember.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: Every time he punched my nose, it just.
> Serino: How many times, OK, how many times you get punched in the
> nose? A couple, few?
>
> Zimmerman: I don't know, I don't remember.
>
> Serino: OK, you never got a chance to hit him, you have no defense
> wounds here, um, any bruising on your body at all?
>
> Zimmerman: Ah, no.
>
> Serino: No broken ribs, no fractured ribs, none of that?
>
> Zimmerman: No.
>
> Serino: Pain? No?
>
> Zimmerman: My doctor said I sprained my SI. Feels like a big bruise,
> like a deep bruise.
>
> Serino: That's why we're here today. Once again, these can be
> interpreted as capillary-type cuts or whatever, lacerations, uh, not
> really, um, coinciding with being slammed hard into the ground. OK?
> That's skull fractures is you happen with that. I've seen 'em all, you
> know.
> legal technicality based on their instructions.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview
>
> "George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from
> God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions
> and answers he has to deal with," Juror B29 told ABC, according to an
> article posted on the network's website Thursday. "(But) the law
> couldn't prove it."
>
> The juror, who used only her first name of Maddy out of concerns for
> her safety, told ABC that she and others on the panel felt Zimmerman
> was guilty, but that wasn't enough.
>
> "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he
> was guilty,"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>
> True but equally , as the prosecutor said, nothing will ever wash
> Trayvon's blood of Zimmerman's hands.
>
> That's the system we have. Better a thousand guilty Zimmermans walk
> free than an innocent man be convicted.
>
> At least that's the theory.
>
> It's the Department of Justice that is investigating Zimmerman for
> prosecutable offenses.
>
> There is no question of the standing of the Martin family.
> If the Martin family bring a civil case against Zimmerman it will be
> judged on preponderance of evidence and he will have to testify and be
> cross examined on the pack of lies presented in the criminal trial.
>
> If forced to answer questions his pack of lies collapses like a house
> of cards
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiub3siGrb8
>
> (Caught in Public) GEORGE ZIMMERMAN LIES UNDER OATH
> On Sun, 25 Aug 2013 10:24:06 -0400, "F. Brown"
what actually happened. Re-creations have to be based on provable facts,
not suppositions staged in such a way as to slant what actually happened.
If the jury had found reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had acted in self
defense they would have found him guilty.
The only "technicality" was that they found him not guilty beyond a
reasonable
doubt.
Any juror heming and hawing about how the verdict was reached is probably
worried about his or her safety from the Martin crowd.
> barriers broken in the use of social media to poison the jury pool.
>
> However no medical treatment was ever considered necessary for the two
> scratches and the Medical Examiner at the trial described them as
> insignificant.
>
> There was never a shred of evidence produced for Zimmerman's fairy
> story of a murderous attack by the schoolboy that necessitated
> shooting him through the heart.
>
>
>>and the blood on the sidewalk were prominently displayed in the
>>national news.
>
> You must have dreamt that I'm afraid.
>
>>and the blood on the sidewalk were prominently displayed in the
>>national news.
>
> No trace of blood was found on the sidewalk despite a thorough search
> by the Forensics team.
>
> The EMTs , Physician' Assistant he got a sick note from and the
> Medical Examiner found no injuries consistent with the attack
> Zimmerman claimed.
>
>>No one claimed Zimmerman was hit 25-30 times in the nose.
>
> That is exactly what Zimmerman claimed and the claim was rejected as
>>No one claimed Zimmerman was hit 25-30 times in the nose.
>
> garbage.
>
> https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1025
>
> Serino: OK. Another thing too as far as 25 and 30 punches, I've
> consulted with a lot of people, not quite consistent with your
> injuries. You do have injuries, however. Um, how did he manage to bang
> your head, and, OK, correct me if I misunderstood what you said here
> as far as slamming the head into the concrete. Into the cement thing.
> How'd he do that?
>
> Zimmerman: I was on my back.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: when he first punched me. I don't know if I immediately
> fell down, he threw me down. I was stumbling, I ended up on my back.
>
> Serino: Um hum.
>
> Zimmerman: And he was on top of me, mounted.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: And he kept punching me, and then, when I started yelling
> for help, that's when he grabbed my head and started to slam it.
>
> Serino: Grabbed your head by your ears, by.hard to say?
>
> Zimmerman: I don't remember.
>
> Serino: OK.
>
> Zimmerman: Every time he punched my nose, it just.
> Serino: How many times, OK, how many times you get punched in the
> nose? A couple, few?
>
> Zimmerman: I don't know, I don't remember.
>
> Serino: OK, you never got a chance to hit him, you have no defense
> wounds here, um, any bruising on your body at all?
>
> Zimmerman: Ah, no.
>
> Serino: No broken ribs, no fractured ribs, none of that?
>
> Zimmerman: No.
>
> Serino: Pain? No?
>
> Zimmerman: My doctor said I sprained my SI. Feels like a big bruise,
> like a deep bruise.
>
> Serino: That's why we're here today. Once again, these can be
> interpreted as capillary-type cuts or whatever, lacerations, uh, not
> really, um, coinciding with being slammed hard into the ground. OK?
> That's skull fractures is you happen with that. I've seen 'em all, you
> know.
>
>
>
>>The evidence was there to convince a jury that Zimmerman had suffered
>>injuries at Martin's hands and had reasonable fear for his life, the
>>qualifications that justified using lethal force to defend himself and
>>justified a not
>>guilty verdict.
>
> Yes, the jurors made clear they felt they had released a murderer on a
>
>
>>The evidence was there to convince a jury that Zimmerman had suffered
>>injuries at Martin's hands and had reasonable fear for his life, the
>>qualifications that justified using lethal force to defend himself and
>>justified a not
>>guilty verdict.
>
> legal technicality based on their instructions.
>
> http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/25/justice/zimmerman-juror-b29-interview
>
> "George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can't get away from
> God. And at the end of the day, he's going to have a lot of questions
> and answers he has to deal with," Juror B29 told ABC, according to an
> article posted on the network's website Thursday. "(But) the law
> couldn't prove it."
>
> The juror, who used only her first name of Maddy out of concerns for
> her safety, told ABC that she and others on the panel felt Zimmerman
> was guilty, but that wasn't enough.
>
> "You can't put the man in jail even though in our hearts we felt he
> was guilty,"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>
>>You can make all the claims to the contrary you want, the verdict is in,
>>Not
>>Guilty,and nothing you or anyone else can say will ever change it.
>>You can make all the claims to the contrary you want, the verdict is in,
>>Not
>
> True but equally , as the prosecutor said, nothing will ever wash
> Trayvon's blood of Zimmerman's hands.
>
> That's the system we have. Better a thousand guilty Zimmermans walk
> free than an innocent man be convicted.
>
> At least that's the theory.
>
> If George Zimmerman's Jury Had Seen This Chilling Video, Would They
> Still Have Let Him Go Free?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>
> Those who were upset about the non-guilty verdict in this case thought
> that George Zimmerman should have never been able to walk free after
> killing an innocent teenager.
>
> Although the jury claimed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to
> put the man behind bars, the re-enactment of Trayvon's death, with
> real 9-11 audio from the night of his death, seems to tell a very
> different story.
>
>
>
>
>
> If George Zimmerman's Jury Had Seen This Chilling Video, Would They
> Still Have Let Him Go Free?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUKzDANF6QU
>
> Those who were upset about the non-guilty verdict in this case thought
> that George Zimmerman should have never been able to walk free after
> killing an innocent teenager.
>
> Although the jury claimed that there wasn't sufficient evidence to
> put the man behind bars, the re-enactment of Trayvon's death, with
> real 9-11 audio from the night of his death, seems to tell a very
> different story.
>
>
>
>
>
>>The Martin family's racism lawsuit is doomed to failure also.
>
> You are confused.
>
>
> It's the Department of Justice that is investigating Zimmerman for
> prosecutable offenses.
>
>>A Federal judge just threw out the racism lawsuit against Paula Deen and
>>the
>>Jackson suit against her collapsed and has been dismissed with prejudice,
>>that means it can never be brought to court again.
>>The same will happen with the Martin case.
>
> Again you are confused.
>>A Federal judge just threw out the racism lawsuit against Paula Deen and
>>the
>>Jackson suit against her collapsed and has been dismissed with prejudice,
>>that means it can never be brought to court again.
>>The same will happen with the Martin case.
>
>
> There is no question of the standing of the Martin family.
> If the Martin family bring a civil case against Zimmerman it will be
> judged on preponderance of evidence and he will have to testify and be
> cross examined on the pack of lies presented in the criminal trial.
>
> If forced to answer questions his pack of lies collapses like a house
> of cards
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qiub3siGrb8
>
> (Caught in Public) GEORGE ZIMMERMAN LIES UNDER OATH
Frank McCoy
Aug 27, 2013, 8:31:39 AM8/27/13
to
"F. Brown" <fred...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The court would not have allowed the video because it had no relevance to
>what actually happened. Re-creations have to be based on provable facts,
>not suppositions staged in such a way as to slant what actually happened.
>If the jury had found reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had acted in self
>defense they would have found him guilty.
You've got the law completely BACKWARDS.
>The court would not have allowed the video because it had no relevance to
>what actually happened. Re-creations have to be based on provable facts,
>not suppositions staged in such a way as to slant what actually happened.
>If the jury had found reasonable doubt that Zimmerman had acted in self
>defense they would have found him guilty.
>The only "technicality" was that they found him not guilty beyond a
>reasonable doubt.
They DID NOT find him "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"!!!
Finding "reasonable doubt" is why they found him not-guilty.
The presumption is of INNOCENCE, not guilt.
This is the USA, not France under Napoleonic Law.
Geesh.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
Oglethorpe
Sep 7, 2013, 10:38:46 PM9/7/13
to
"Full Name" <us...@example.net> wrote in message
news:6c1919pvlbgr6thkd...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:43:58 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
> ROTFLMAO!
>
> You not going to gain shit,in fact you're losing the
> House.
>
>
Opinions differ.
>
> You not going to gain shit,in fact you're losing the
> House.
>
>
F. Brown
Sep 8, 2013, 10:30:06 AM9/8/13
to
news:AoidnT7gbty5WrbP...@mchsi.com...
One should look at the results of the recent Aussie elections, the
Conservatives
kicked the ruling Liberals out of power over the very items that concern
American voters.
Carbon Tax blamed for higher energy bills, higher taxes, bigger government.
The exact same platform Conservative and Tea Party platform.
Conservatives
kicked the ruling Liberals out of power over the very items that concern
American voters.
Carbon Tax blamed for higher energy bills, higher taxes, bigger government.
The exact same platform Conservative and Tea Party platform.
0 new messages