Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Tracey12
Apr 27, 2012, 12:33:32 AM4/27/12
to
4 Weeks in a row, unemployment has moved higher.
Official unemployment 8.2, however, many economists say 15pct.
Housing prices still falling in many places.
Gasoline moving up.
Food moving up.
Clothing moving up.
Utilities moving up.
Incomes are moving down.
stocks are higher because of an increased expectation that the fed
will offer up QE3.
The economy has stalled. Its because of several factors, but largely
due to higher energy prices which are taking every dime Americans have
beyond their cost of living.
If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
will.
DUMP OBAMA!!!
Official unemployment 8.2, however, many economists say 15pct.
Housing prices still falling in many places.
Gasoline moving up.
Food moving up.
Clothing moving up.
Utilities moving up.
Incomes are moving down.
stocks are higher because of an increased expectation that the fed
will offer up QE3.
The economy has stalled. Its because of several factors, but largely
due to higher energy prices which are taking every dime Americans have
beyond their cost of living.
If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
will.
DUMP OBAMA!!!
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 4:40:41 AM4/27/12
to
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
<tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
>office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
General Election: Romney vs. Obama
<tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
>office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
Obama 47.6%
Romney 43.9%
Obama Job Approval:
Approve 48.1%
Disapprove 47.4%
Congressional Job Approval:
Approve 14%
Disapprove 78
Direction of country:
Right direction 32%
Wrong direction 60.8%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
>Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
>will.
heading that way. It still amazes me that even today americans are
screaming about reds under the bed. I thought you would have grown
out of that by now.
--
Ferrit
()'.'.'()
( (T) )
( ) . ( )
(")_(")
linuxgal
Apr 27, 2012, 8:52:38 AM4/27/12
to
Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
> <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
>> will.
>
> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> heading that way.
Review the sad history of America's Original Inhabitants to see what
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
> <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
>> will.
>
> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> heading that way.
entitlements can do to a once proud people.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 9:09:41 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 4:40 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
> >office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
>
> General Election: Romney vs. Obama
> Obama 47.6%
> Romney 43.9%
>
> Obama Job Approval:
> Approve 48.1%
> Disapprove 47.4%
>
> Congressional Job Approval:
> Approve 14%
> Disapprove 78
>
> Direction of country:
> Right direction 32%
> Wrong direction 60.8%http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
> >If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
> >office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
>
> General Election: Romney vs. Obama
> Obama 47.6%
> Romney 43.9%
>
> Obama Job Approval:
> Approve 48.1%
> Disapprove 47.4%
>
> Congressional Job Approval:
> Approve 14%
> Disapprove 78
>
> Direction of country:
> Right direction 32%
>
> >Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> >will.
>
> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> heading that way. It still amazes me that even today americans are
> screaming about reds under the bed. I thought you would have grown
> out of that by now.
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
Do you believe:
> >Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> >will.
>
> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> heading that way. It still amazes me that even today americans are
> screaming about reds under the bed. I thought you would have grown
> out of that by now.
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
1. that government should seize control and regulate private
property
for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
at
fair market value;
2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
consumption tax;
3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
"public airwaves";
7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
9. in opposition to school vouchers?
Steve
Apr 27, 2012, 9:17:55 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
all about.. It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy.
wrote:
chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
all about.. It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy.
Sir Ray
Apr 27, 2012, 9:21:28 AM4/27/12
to
"Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart"
Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you believe:
> 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> property
> for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
Are you conflating regulation with eminient domain here? What are you
trying to do here?
decades it has been in force.
to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.
wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
dispute.
object
So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you believe:
> 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> property
> for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
trying to do here?
> 2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> consumption tax;
Oh, hell yes.
> consumption tax;
> 3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
The Estate Tax is a very good idea, and has worked well over the
decades it has been in force.
> 4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
Yes, it's still income to the person (or corporation)
> 5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
The act was actually somewhat weak, but still better than nothing
> Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> "public airwaves";
To bad we can't force all the useless Right-Wing talk radio stations
> "public airwaves";
to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.
> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
Yes
> 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
Unions create contracts with employers; these contracts define the
wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
dispute.
> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
Vouchers for private religions education - yes, any sane person would
object
So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 10:19:23 AM4/27/12
to
>Do you believe:
>1. that government should seize control and regulate private
>property
>for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
>at
>fair market value;
No, but I accept that sometimes for the supposed "good of the people"
>1. that government should seize control and regulate private
>property
>for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
>at
>fair market value;
this has happened. It is how most military bases expanded and how
airbases were built during the war to defend my country. What I do
not accept is the fact that people were not given the true value of
their loss.
>2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
>consumption tax;
governments. How do you measure your use of the military? How do you
use measure your use of the diplomat who manages to arrange an
overseas order for a company?
>3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
wealthy but now due to the limits not being moved it is taxing far
more than originally envisioned.
>4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
do realise that there is relief for tax suffered abroad.
If you do not do this all the wealthy will simply ensure they earn all
profits in an other country to avoid tax, do you agree with that?
>5. in the The Dodd芳rank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
>Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
I do not know what this act is. So I can offer no opinion.
>6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
>"public airwaves";
your airwaves it would then be wrong to demand that the owner give
them up to some 3rd party. Just as you would not want somebody
telling you that you have to share your property with some 3rd party.
I do however agree with preventing any one group, company or
individual monopolising the airwaves.
>7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
companies with grants towards loan interest on start up companies, but
if a company cannot survive I see no point in using government money
to bail them out. If they are viable, the banks would lend to them.
>8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
the correct removal of incompetent staff. But then I have also seen
them as the only ones to act when a member of staff deserved
protection from an abusive employer.
>9. in opposition to school vouchers?
for it. State schooling will only suffer further because money is
taken out of the system. I especially object to this where the
school is promoting bigotry wrapped up in the name of religion. Hate
is wrong no matter how it is presented.
What are your views on these?
Ramon F. Herrera
Apr 27, 2012, 9:04:53 AM4/27/12
to
at around The Trail of Tears.
You may rest assured that the "sad history" will not repeat with us
Latinos.
Latinos are underrepresented as welfare recipients.
The future of America is inextricably tied to the future of Hispanic
kids.
-Ramon
---------------------------------------------------
"AZ Hispanics far outstrip whites in NAEP gains"
http://tinyurl.com/brp25k6
---------------------------------------------------
"Hispanic College Enrollment Spikes, Narrowing Gaps with Other Groups"
Hispanics: +349,000
Whites: -320,000
http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=146
---------------------------------------------------
"Census Bureau Reports Hispanic-Owned Businesses Increase at More Than
Double the National Rate"
http://tinyurl.com/2ejxkoz
---------------------------------------------------
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 11:02:46 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:19 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> >5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
My view of these isn't important. What is important is whether or not
the people recognize them for what they are; they are 9 existing laws
that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
I avoid the accusation of "communism" simply because it evokes such
strong emotion that it stops any logical thought, BUT Tracy already
let the word out.
We have allowed our government to step on our lives in such baby steps
that we haven't even noticed the oppression. Our Constitution
guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their ...,
papers,..." BUT read the "Bank Secrecy Act of 1970"
Our Constitution states that the government has to pay fair market
value for a citizens property, BUT we have allowed the EPA to seize
control of a person's private property without any compensation.
Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
the people recognize them for what they are; they are 9 existing laws
that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
I avoid the accusation of "communism" simply because it evokes such
strong emotion that it stops any logical thought, BUT Tracy already
let the word out.
We have allowed our government to step on our lives in such baby steps
that we haven't even noticed the oppression. Our Constitution
guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their ...,
papers,..." BUT read the "Bank Secrecy Act of 1970"
Our Constitution states that the government has to pay fair market
value for a citizens property, BUT we have allowed the EPA to seize
control of a person's private property without any compensation.
Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 11:04:41 AM4/27/12
to
Planks of the Communist Manifesto", you also called them "some common
sense ideas".
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 11:13:48 AM4/27/12
to
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:db67d8b7-f717-4769...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should own
private businesses.....that's Communism.
Communism, by the way is dead.
Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
RRRs keep flogging a dead horse!
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 11:21:31 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 11:13 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
> Communism, by the way is dead.
> Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> RRRs keep flogging a dead horse!
Read the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" and see if you can see
any correlation between those 9 items and 9 of the 10 planks.
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> Communism, by the way is dead.
> Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> RRRs keep flogging a dead horse!
any correlation between those 9 items and 9 of the 10 planks.
Sir Ray
Apr 27, 2012, 11:41:19 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 11:21 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Read the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" and see if you can see
> any correlation between those 9 items and 9 of the 10 planks.
And thru the magic of wiki, we can do just that:
> Read the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" and see if you can see
> any correlation between those 9 items and 9 of the 10 planks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto
"1.Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land
to public purposes."
Not even close to eminent domain or regulation of land
"2.A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
So Capitalism requires a comsumption or sales tax?
"3.Abolition of all right of inheritance."
The current Estate tax is clearly not this at all.
"4.Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels."
But the taxing of overseas profits concerns the income of US citizens
and US-based corporations, not "emigrants and rebels"
"5.Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
Do you even have a clue as to what Dodd-Frank bill does? Hint, it does
not concern the creation of a central bank, but rather regulation of
credit cards, financial practices, establishing a consumer financial
protection bureau, among other things
"6.Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
hands of the State."
Not even close to the erstwhile Fairness doctrine or the current
duties of the FCC
"7.Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan."
Not even close to the GM/Chrysler bailout
"8.Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial
armies, especially for agriculture."
This was what-all to do with the right of workers to create and join
unions, and the ability of that union to enter into contracts with
employers - oh, yes, nothing.
"9.Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual
abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more
equitable distribution of the population over the country."
Even you couldn't twist this one to meet your needs
"10.Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labour in its present form and combination of
education with industrial production."
So...you're equating a distaste for vouchers spent in religious based
schools with child-labor now. Interesting...and wrong.
"Read the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto" and see if you can
see any correlation between those 9 items and 9 of the 10 planks"
(progressive income tax, which is sensible)
So basically you're pointing at a wharf-rat, saying to us look at the
pretty pony, and pouting when we point out that it's not a pony at
all.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 11:42:11 AM4/27/12
to
news:bd13f42a-4fe2-4165...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
Saving GM is good public policy.
It's pragmatic, not ideological.
It's what just governments do.
To have failed to do so would be akin to criminal negligence.
Communism is dead.
It's pragmatic, not ideological.
It's what just governments do.
To have failed to do so would be akin to criminal negligence.
Communism is dead.
Robert Westergrom
Apr 27, 2012, 11:52:58 AM4/27/12
to
dealerships,losing $MILLIONS on an electric car nobody wants,building
new car factories in Mexico are good ideas I suppose?
> To have failed to do so would be akin to criminal negligence.
>
> Communism is dead.
> Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>
Sorry sid,but Obama has many self proclaimed
communists,marxists,socialists and Maoists in his administration.
Fact. You can have you own lies but you can't have your own facts.
> - Show quoted text -
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 11:57:40 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:02:46 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
People are taking notice. But you can apply the 10 principles to
almost all governments, both democratic, communist, dictatorial etc.
They are so general as it is likely that your government in any
country will have a large number of similar actions in progress.
But ask yourself, do you really think your country is communist or
likely to be?
1) No private ownership of Land - please show me where Americans or
any other western country is denied ownership of land.
2) Progressive or graduated income tax - most nations have found this
to be the best. Just as most countries have state healthcare now. Do
we throw this out because it might make us Nazi's because they
promoted state healthcare?
3) Abolition of inheritance - you questioned taxing it, not abolishing
it. Please show me where America is intending to abolish people
inheriting.
4) Confiscation of all property of emigrants - clearly not the taxing
of overseas income, but preventing people leaving taking their goods.
Where does America do this?
5) Nationalise all Banks - are all your banks now in the hands of the
government?
6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport -
clearly not giving people equal airtime as you questioned, not even
close.
7) Building state factories and farms - not the same as your question
about a state supporting a firm. How many state owned industries do
you have in America?
8) Equal liability to labour for he state - Not a union, in fact these
are banned under communism as you should be working for the state, not
the union.
9) Abolish distinction between town & country by equal distribution of
population - I assume you missed this.
10) Free education in all public schools - free education is offered
by most countries in the western world, but unlike communism they also
allow private schools, so the voucher question is irrelevant as there
would be no schools for them to be used in under communism.
So in reality you missed most of the planks by miles and tried to
twist other items to fit very poorly. But considering Nazi Europe had
free healthcare, free education etc, does that mean all countries that
have similar are Nazi states?
wrote:
almost all governments, both democratic, communist, dictatorial etc.
They are so general as it is likely that your government in any
country will have a large number of similar actions in progress.
But ask yourself, do you really think your country is communist or
likely to be?
1) No private ownership of Land - please show me where Americans or
any other western country is denied ownership of land.
2) Progressive or graduated income tax - most nations have found this
to be the best. Just as most countries have state healthcare now. Do
we throw this out because it might make us Nazi's because they
promoted state healthcare?
3) Abolition of inheritance - you questioned taxing it, not abolishing
it. Please show me where America is intending to abolish people
inheriting.
4) Confiscation of all property of emigrants - clearly not the taxing
of overseas income, but preventing people leaving taking their goods.
Where does America do this?
5) Nationalise all Banks - are all your banks now in the hands of the
government?
6) Centralisation of the means of communication and transport -
clearly not giving people equal airtime as you questioned, not even
close.
7) Building state factories and farms - not the same as your question
about a state supporting a firm. How many state owned industries do
you have in America?
8) Equal liability to labour for he state - Not a union, in fact these
are banned under communism as you should be working for the state, not
the union.
9) Abolish distinction between town & country by equal distribution of
population - I assume you missed this.
10) Free education in all public schools - free education is offered
by most countries in the western world, but unlike communism they also
allow private schools, so the voucher question is irrelevant as there
would be no schools for them to be used in under communism.
So in reality you missed most of the planks by miles and tried to
twist other items to fit very poorly. But considering Nazi Europe had
free healthcare, free education etc, does that mean all countries that
have similar are Nazi states?
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 11:58:25 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:13:48 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>> 5. in the The Dodd芳rank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
not communism the way it was intended.
wrote:
>> Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
>> "public airwaves";
>> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
>> 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
>None of that is "Communism"
>Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should own
>private businesses.....that's Communism.
>Communism, by the way is dead.
>Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>RRRs keep flogging a dead horse!
It never really started. The closest was in China and that still was
>> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
>> "public airwaves";
>> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
>> 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
>None of that is "Communism"
>Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should own
>private businesses.....that's Communism.
>Communism, by the way is dead.
>Communism died in the 20th Century with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>RRRs keep flogging a dead horse!
not communism the way it was intended.
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 11:59:22 AM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> None of that is "Communism"
>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should own
>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>
>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
So your government owns and runs GM 100%....that is state ownership.
wrote:
>> None of that is "Communism"
>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should own
>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>
>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
jane.playne
Apr 27, 2012, 12:08:36 PM4/27/12
to
unique plan, The US Constitution that limited the federal government and
protected citizen's rights.
Rather than arguing all of the points, let me take one as an example,
private property. Our Founding Fathers believed in private property BUT
also recognized the needs of a society. So, the Constitution granted the
power to "take control" of a person's private property IF the government
paid fair market value. I used the term "take control" because a normal
purchase requires the agreement of both the buyer and the seller. The
Constitution granted the power to force the sale against the will of the
seller.
NOW, enter the EPA. The EPA can Take Control of an individual's flood
plain "for the good of society". I agree with this, BUT with the
limitation that that the Constitution is honored and the private
property owner receives fair market value.
Does this mean that the first Plank of the Communist Manifesto is fully
implemented? NO. It is a baby step.
If the fledgling US government had proposed the "Bank Secrecy Act" I
believe that the Anti Federalist would have won and the Federalist would
have lost. HOWEVER, the Bank Secrecy Act" has taken place as a result
of many many baby-steps.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 12:18:51 PM4/27/12
to
"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
"run' the company.
The stock will be sold as soon as it can.
Meanwhile, it was a pragmatic approach to solve a problem that only
government can deal with.
Slapping phony labels on the action contributes nothing
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 1:00:17 PM4/27/12
to
any more than you are following the path the a Fascist state. I could
show equal examples from the German government in 1919 to 1945 to
match all you have said above. Why are you not concerned by becoming
a fascist state?
The reality is that America has never got over the indoctrination that
they are fighting communism.
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 1:05:07 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:18:51 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
>
It is similar with a few banks over here. Government brought stock,
but not enough for overall control and certainly not with an intent to
keep it long term.
A real government theft of property is that which recently occurred in
Argentina seizing YPF.
wrote:
>
>"Alan Ferris" <hairy....@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> None of that is "Communism"
>>>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should
>>>> own
>>>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>>>
>>>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
>>
>> So your government owns and runs GM 100%....that is state ownership.
>
>news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> None of that is "Communism"
>>>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should
>>>> own
>>>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>>>
>>>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
>>
>> So your government owns and runs GM 100%....that is state ownership.
>
>While our government temporarily owns a majority of GM stock it does not
>"run' the company.
>The stock will be sold as soon as it can.
>
>Meanwhile, it was a pragmatic approach to solve a problem that only
>government can deal with.
>Slapping phony labels on the action contributes nothing
Thank you for the clarification, that is what I thought had happened.
>"run' the company.
>The stock will be sold as soon as it can.
>
>Meanwhile, it was a pragmatic approach to solve a problem that only
>government can deal with.
>Slapping phony labels on the action contributes nothing
It is similar with a few banks over here. Government brought stock,
but not enough for overall control and certainly not with an intent to
keep it long term.
A real government theft of property is that which recently occurred in
Argentina seizing YPF.
gfn
Apr 27, 2012, 1:01:50 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:18 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Alan Ferris" <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
too.
> "Alan Ferris" <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >>> None of that is "Communism"
> >>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should
> >>> own
> >>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>
> >>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
>
> > So your government owns and runs GM 100%....that is state ownership.
>
> > --
> > Ferrit
>
> > ()'.'.'()
> > ( (T) )
> > ( ) . ( )
> > (")_(")
>
> While our government temporarily owns a majority of GM stock it does not
> "run' the company.
> The stock will be sold as soon as it can.
Yeah right, and the federal income tax was supposed to be temporary
>
> >>> None of that is "Communism"
> >>> Nowhere in your list is there a suggestion that the government should
> >>> own
> >>> private businesses.....that's Communism.
>
> >>Item #7, Government Motors (GM)
>
> > So your government owns and runs GM 100%....that is state ownership.
>
> > --
> > Ferrit
>
> > ()'.'.'()
> > ( (T) )
> > ( ) . ( )
> > (")_(")
>
> While our government temporarily owns a majority of GM stock it does not
> "run' the company.
> The stock will be sold as soon as it can.
too.
jane.playne
Apr 27, 2012, 1:26:59 PM4/27/12
to
mentioning fascism, like communism, stops logical thought and discussion.
Here is an excellent quote regarding economic fascism in the US:
A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States
in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these
policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word
fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym
“industrial policy” is as popular as ever.[1]
Our current Obamacare is an excellent example of "planned capitalism"
citations:
1. Economic Fascism by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 1:32:42 PM4/27/12
to
news:f7klp7t8pf9vlns50...@4ax.com...
Mexico kicked out private oil companies in 1938.
Things were tense we might have even gone to war.
Statements were made in the press that Mexicans would not be able to run to
oil companies.
In time that all turned out to be false.
PEMEX is state owned and contributes much to keep Mexican taxes low.
Meanwhile multinational oil companies extract American oil and ship it out
of the country.
A national security problem ignored and forgotten because of ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_oil_expropriation
Things were tense we might have even gone to war.
Statements were made in the press that Mexicans would not be able to run to
oil companies.
In time that all turned out to be false.
PEMEX is state owned and contributes much to keep Mexican taxes low.
Meanwhile multinational oil companies extract American oil and ship it out
of the country.
A national security problem ignored and forgotten because of ideology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_oil_expropriation
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 1:43:12 PM4/27/12
to
America are Fascist as we all have state healthcare.
Do you really want to reject any idea used by a system of government
you do not agree with? You do realise that some of your current tax
systems came from the UK, does that mean you will all end up being
Royalists as well as Communists and Fascists? How will it work, will
you be Fascists one day and Communist the next?
Robert Westergrom
Apr 27, 2012, 1:47:31 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 12:32 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Alan Ferris" <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
Taxes low"?? That explains why the average mexkin citizen lives
like royalty.
> Meanwhile multinational oil companies extract American oil and ship it out
> of the country.
If you don't like it I suggest you get a $5 BILLION "loan" from
your POTUS and start your own oil company.
> A national security problem ignored and forgotten because of ideology
>
Who's "ideology"?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_oil_expropriation- Hide quoted text -
> "Alan Ferris" <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:f7klp7t8pf9vlns50...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:18:51 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>"Alan Ferris" <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f7klp7t8pf9vlns50...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:18:51 -0400, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>news:ehglp7tdr1f3gj4l3...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:21:31 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
like royalty.
> Meanwhile multinational oil companies extract American oil and ship it out
> of the country.
your POTUS and start your own oil company.
> A national security problem ignored and forgotten because of ideology
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_oil_expropriation- Hide quoted text -
jane.playne
Apr 27, 2012, 2:05:59 PM4/27/12
to
that I know for sure:
1. Our Founding Father's risked their lives in a disagreement with one
of your kings regarding being subjects of the King.
2. Using Obamacare as an example, when our government can force its
citizens to purchase a product, we are now becoming Subjects of the State.
I don't expect you to understand my concerns since you guys have
accepted the concept of being subjugated for hundreds of years now.
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 2:12:29 PM4/27/12
to
fighting the French. Correctly the King wanted restitution for
defending the colony's, the Colony's did not want to pay.
>2. Using Obamacare as an example, when our government can force its
>citizens to purchase a product, we are now becoming Subjects of the State.
country receive the healthcare they want and are not forced to have
anything they do not wish to. However ALL employers have to pay their
taxes.
Are you suggesting that people can stop paying any tax just because
their faith might oppose something the government is doing? How about
those funding faith schools, can we stop that as clearly your founders
did not want those funded by government.
>I don't expect you to understand my concerns since you guys have
>accepted the concept of being subjugated for hundreds of years now.
subjugated when they do not fully understand even what freedom is and
the responsibility of it. We are governed by the CHOICE of the
people. This was what we fought a civil war for and what we have done
ever since. Just as we are policed by the choice of the people.
Only if you understood how our laws work would you understand this.
I love working within UK law as it shows me how free we really are and
how much freedom we have kept compared to other countries.
wy
Apr 27, 2012, 2:15:58 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 2:05 pm, "jane.playne" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 01:43, Alan Ferris wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:26:59 -0400, "jane.playne"
> > <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 01:43, Alan Ferris wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 13:26:59 -0400, "jane.playne"
government when you pay for your own health care? One way or another,
you have to pay for it, and if you don't, then someone pays for you,
which actually would make that person a subject of the government by
being dependent on it. So come one, tell us. How do you subjugate
yourself by doing what you would normally do anyway? Never mind that
because I know you don't have a coherent response for it. Tell me
instead what you disprove of with this:
http://www.healthreform.gov/newsroom/new_patients_bill_of_rights.html
So far nobody has been willing to disprove of any of it. Let's see if
you'll be the first.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 2:33:43 PM4/27/12
to
"jane.playne" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:jnekt4$j7g$1...@dont-email.me...
and that practical measures that work and that are needed are put in place.
We know pure "capitalism" doesn’t work.
We know pure "socialism" doesn’t work.
We know that some elements of these ideologies work and some do not.
So, we choose what works and discard the ideological crap that keeps us
stalled and frozen.
Nothing is black and white.
Nothing earns these dumb right wing "socialism" and "communism" labels that
are thrown around on these news groups.
The word is pragmatism.
The question is. "Does it work?"
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 2:42:51 PM4/27/12
to
news:jnen68$1dd$1...@dont-email.me...
1. Our "founding fathers" lived in the late eighteenth century.
While our original constitution is a great document is has been changed,
fortunately, to keep up with the times.
It has been changed by both amendment and court decisions.
Americans are lucky that they have not been frozen into 18th Century law.
2. We already have laws mandating health care for the uninsured.
Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
While our original constitution is a great document is has been changed,
fortunately, to keep up with the times.
It has been changed by both amendment and court decisions.
Americans are lucky that they have not been frozen into 18th Century law.
2. We already have laws mandating health care for the uninsured.
Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
jane.playne
Apr 27, 2012, 2:46:37 PM4/27/12
to
On 4/27/2012 02:12, Alan Ferris wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:05:59 -0400, "jane.playne"
> <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Do you really want to reject any idea used by a system of government
>>> you do not agree with? You do realise that some of your current tax
>>> systems came from the UK, does that mean you will all end up being
>>> Royalists as well as Communists and Fascists? How will it work, will
>>> you be Fascists one day and Communist the next?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have an answer to your presumptions, but there are two things
>> that I know for sure:
>>
>> 1. Our Founding Father's risked their lives in a disagreement with one
>> of your kings regarding being subjects of the King.
>
> No, it was about not having to pay for the use of our military when
> fighting the French. Correctly the King wanted restitution for
> defending the colony's, the Colony's did not want to pay.
>
>> 2. Using Obamacare as an example, when our government can force its
>> citizens to purchase a product, we are now becoming Subjects of the State.
>
> Nobody is forcing you to purchase anything.
You haven't been following the US news have you?
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:05:59 -0400, "jane.playne"
> <jane....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Do you really want to reject any idea used by a system of government
>>> you do not agree with? You do realise that some of your current tax
>>> systems came from the UK, does that mean you will all end up being
>>> Royalists as well as Communists and Fascists? How will it work, will
>>> you be Fascists one day and Communist the next?
>>>
>>
>> I don't have an answer to your presumptions, but there are two things
>> that I know for sure:
>>
>> 1. Our Founding Father's risked their lives in a disagreement with one
>> of your kings regarding being subjects of the King.
>
> No, it was about not having to pay for the use of our military when
> fighting the French. Correctly the King wanted restitution for
> defending the colony's, the Colony's did not want to pay.
>
>> 2. Using Obamacare as an example, when our government can force its
>> citizens to purchase a product, we are now becoming Subjects of the State.
>
> Nobody is forcing you to purchase anything.
Several State Governments have challenged the Federal government in
federal courts.
The US Supreme Court recently held hearings about the constitutionality
of the US forcing its subject to purchase a product. They are deciding
the issue and will make their decision known in a couple of months.
First. Post
Apr 27, 2012, 3:04:30 PM4/27/12
to
saying anything about the laws and rules in his country while the hypocritical
son of a bitch thinks he knows more about the US constitution than its' own
citizens.
Just goes to show you, liberals are just as stupid across the ocean as they are
here.
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 4:48:06 PM4/27/12
to
own country works and its history. They get so polarised by politics
they believe anything handed down to them from that party without
actually checking the facts.
That was said to me by an American who I was working with in your
country, he also worked over here for your government for about 10
years before returning. He told me he is looking for his next
appointment overseas.
So, for once why do you not address the subject and try leaving the
insults aside, or are you actually unable to express what you believe
in?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Alan Ferris
Apr 27, 2012, 5:29:55 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:04:07 -0500, denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
M) wrote:
>In article <va1mp75a8bp8o4bli...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris
>Please accept my apologies for this rude wanker my British friend, we're
>not all complete morons over here.
It has been interesting today discussing why some think Obama a
communist. Even though I think they are wrong, they have been able to
argue their point without insults. I do enjoy visiting America as I
have made some good friends there. Shame is that it is always too
short, such is the way with business. I do keep promising myself time
for a real visit with the wife and maybe a bike ride through some of
the fine hills you have.
M) wrote:
>In article <va1mp75a8bp8o4bli...@4ax.com>, Alan Ferris
>not all complete morons over here.
It has been interesting today discussing why some think Obama a
communist. Even though I think they are wrong, they have been able to
argue their point without insults. I do enjoy visiting America as I
have made some good friends there. Shame is that it is always too
short, such is the way with business. I do keep promising myself time
for a real visit with the wife and maybe a bike ride through some of
the fine hills you have.
Steve
Apr 27, 2012, 5:37:57 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
M) wrote:
>In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5s...@4ax.com>, Steve
><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
>>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
>>all about..
>
>If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
>business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
to turn things around..
>GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
>hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
>>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
>>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
>>bankruptcy.
>
>Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
>American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
viable company today.
M) wrote:
>In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5s...@4ax.com>, Steve
><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
>>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
>>all about..
>
>If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
>business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
to turn things around..
>GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
>hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
>>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
>>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
>>bankruptcy.
>
>Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
>American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
viable company today.
linuxgal
Apr 27, 2012, 7:21:09 PM4/27/12
to
Sid9 wrote:
>
> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
>
> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
under ObamaCare the government does both. By now everyone understands
why Congress called it a health care reform BILL. Good health is grand,
the fine for not getting health coverage is two grand.
Al
Apr 27, 2012, 7:40:41 PM4/27/12
to
In article
<13628418-5612-474e...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:52 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > to see what entitlements can do to a once proud people.
>
> The damage was done much, much earlier than the entitlements existed,
> at around The Trail of Tears.
>
> You may rest assured that the "sad history" will not repeat with us
> Latinos.
Why do you portray Latinos as such victimized, persecuted people?
As an immigrant group, they have it far, far better than any previous group.
For the Amigos, it's the Trail of Beers, not Tears.
> Latinos are underrepresented as welfare recipients.
16.3% of the population, 17 percent of welfare. That's over-representation.
Whites are 72.4% and 55% respectively
Blacks are 12% and 28%.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/welfare-expenditures-ethnic-group
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
70% of births at Dallas Parkland are to illegal alien parents. All of those
births, pre- and post-natal care are paid for by the American taxpayer, and
the taxpayer will pay for their food, clothing and education until they
graduate, or drop out.
The noble victim crap is bullshit, amigo.
=
> The future of America is inextricably tied to the future of Hispanic
> kids.
Yes, they had better buck up and stay in school, because if they spend their
lifetime being net tax recipients, cradle to grave, it's not going to work
well.
<13628418-5612-474e...@p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
"Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 7:52 am, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> > Alan Ferris wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
> > > <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> > >> will.
> >
> > > Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> > > heading that way.
> >
>
> > Review the sad history of America's Original Inhabitants
> > > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
> > > <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> > >> will.
> >
> > > Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> > > heading that way.
> >
>
> > to see what entitlements can do to a once proud people.
>
> The damage was done much, much earlier than the entitlements existed,
> at around The Trail of Tears.
>
> You may rest assured that the "sad history" will not repeat with us
> Latinos.
Why do you portray Latinos as such victimized, persecuted people?
As an immigrant group, they have it far, far better than any previous group.
For the Amigos, it's the Trail of Beers, not Tears.
> Latinos are underrepresented as welfare recipients.
16.3% of the population, 17 percent of welfare. That's over-representation.
Whites are 72.4% and 55% respectively
Blacks are 12% and 28%.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/welfare-expenditures-ethnic-group
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
70% of births at Dallas Parkland are to illegal alien parents. All of those
births, pre- and post-natal care are paid for by the American taxpayer, and
the taxpayer will pay for their food, clothing and education until they
graduate, or drop out.
The noble victim crap is bullshit, amigo.
=
> The future of America is inextricably tied to the future of Hispanic
> kids.
Yes, they had better buck up and stay in school, because if they spend their
lifetime being net tax recipients, cradle to grave, it's not going to work
well.
Message has been deleted
Steve
Apr 27, 2012, 8:29:00 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:22:05 -0500, denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
M) wrote:
>In article <ln3mp7th6t5bhr7bm...@4ax.com>, Steve
>willing to carry their debt while they were restructuring -- even
>Etch-A-Mitt's own Bain Capital.
<chuckle> You really don't have a clue, do you?
>>>GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
>>>hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>>>
>>>>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
>>>>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
>>>>bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
>>>American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>>
>>That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
>>viable company today.
>
>GM is a viable company today and posted its most profitable year ever in
>2011, no thanks to far-right Republican ideologues.
>
>Maybe you demented assholes can have better luck destroying the US Postal
>Service and their union -- tens of thousands of jobs be damned.
It should have been killed long ago.
M) wrote:
>In article <ln3mp7th6t5bhr7bm...@4ax.com>, Steve
><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
>>M) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5s...@4ax.com>, Steve
>>><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
>>>>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
>>>>all about..
>>>
>>>If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
>>>business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>>
>>No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
>>to turn things around..
>
>It still would have been a death knell for GM because there was no company
>
>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denn...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
>>M) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5s...@4ax.com>, Steve
>>><steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
>>>>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
>>>>all about..
>>>
>>>If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
>>>business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>>
>>No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
>>to turn things around..
>
>willing to carry their debt while they were restructuring -- even
>Etch-A-Mitt's own Bain Capital.
<chuckle> You really don't have a clue, do you?
>>>GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
>>>hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>>>
>>>>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
>>>>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
>>>>bankruptcy.
>>>
>>>Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
>>>American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>>
>>That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
>>viable company today.
>
>2011, no thanks to far-right Republican ideologues.
>
>Maybe you demented assholes can have better luck destroying the US Postal
>Service and their union -- tens of thousands of jobs be damned.
It should have been killed long ago.
Message has been deleted
Erika Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Apr 27, 2012, 10:36:54 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 9:30 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>
> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> IDIOT>
You're a fucking liar. According to Pelosi they had to pass the bill
to find out whats in it.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:21:09 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Sid9 wrote:
>
> >> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> >> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>
> >Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
> >under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> THen why did the "Heritage Foundation", the preeminent policy making
> wrote:
>
> >Sid9 wrote:
>
> >> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> >> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>
> >Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
> >under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>
> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> IDIOT>
You're a fucking liar. According to Pelosi they had to pass the bill
to find out whats in it.
Linda Austin
Apr 27, 2012, 10:39:21 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 5:37 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
>
> M) wrote:
> >In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5sderkdfvg1vf58i...@4ax.com>, Steve
bankrupt company?
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
>
> M) wrote:
> >In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5sderkdfvg1vf58i...@4ax.com>, Steve
> ><stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
> >>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> >>all about..
>
> >If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
> >business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>
> No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
> to turn things around..
>
> >GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
> >hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
> >>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
> >>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
> >>bankruptcy.
>
> >Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
> >American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>
> That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
> viable company today.
No one would have bought their cars, moron. Who wants a car made by a
>
> >>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
> >>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> >>all about..
>
> >If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
> >business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>
> No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
> to turn things around..
>
> >GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
> >hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
> >>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
> >>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
> >>bankruptcy.
>
> >Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
> >American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>
> That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
> viable company today.
bankrupt company?
Linda Austin
Apr 27, 2012, 10:43:04 PM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 11:04 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:21 am, Sir Ray <waterboi5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart"
> > Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
> > Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do you believe:
> > > 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > > property
> > > for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
>
> > Are you conflating regulation with eminient domain here? What are you
> > trying to do here?> 2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > > consumption tax;
> > Oh, hell yes.
> > > 3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > The Estate Tax is a very good idea, and has worked well over the
> > decades it has been in force.> 4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > Yes, it's still income to the person (or corporation)> 5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > > Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
> > The act was actually somewhat weak, but still better than nothing> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > > "public airwaves";
>
> > To bad we can't force all the useless Right-Wing talk radio stations
> > to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
> > Yes
> > > 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > Unions create contracts with employers; these contracts define the
> > wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
> > that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
> > dispute.> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > Vouchers for private religions education - yes, any sane person would
> > object
>
> > So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
> > any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
>
> Congratulations Sir Ray, you not only failed to recognize 9 of the "10
> Planks of the Communist Manifesto", you also called them "some common
> sense ideas".
9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto??? The pavilion of
women, perhaps? Worker ownership of the means of production? You are a
medtal freakshow aren't you? You want to talk Communists? So did
Hitler. That was his excuse for suspending civil rights in Germany.
That was also his excuse for invading Austria.
> On Apr 27, 9:21 am, Sir Ray <waterboi5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart"
> > Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
> > Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do you believe:
> > > 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > > property
> > > for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
>
> > Are you conflating regulation with eminient domain here? What are you
> > trying to do here?> 2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > > consumption tax;
> > Oh, hell yes.
> > > 3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > The Estate Tax is a very good idea, and has worked well over the
> > decades it has been in force.> 4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > Yes, it's still income to the person (or corporation)> 5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > > Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
> > The act was actually somewhat weak, but still better than nothing> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > > "public airwaves";
>
> > To bad we can't force all the useless Right-Wing talk radio stations
> > to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
> > Yes
> > > 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > Unions create contracts with employers; these contracts define the
> > wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
> > that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
> > dispute.> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > Vouchers for private religions education - yes, any sane person would
> > object
>
> > So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
> > any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
>
> Congratulations Sir Ray, you not only failed to recognize 9 of the "10
> Planks of the Communist Manifesto", you also called them "some common
> sense ideas".
9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto??? The pavilion of
women, perhaps? Worker ownership of the means of production? You are a
medtal freakshow aren't you? You want to talk Communists? So did
Hitler. That was his excuse for suspending civil rights in Germany.
That was also his excuse for invading Austria.
wy
Apr 28, 2012, 12:34:06 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 5:37 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:00:28 -0500, denni...@dennism3.invalid (Dennis
>
> M) wrote:
> >In article <cp6lp7ln68335hf5sderkdfvg1vf58i...@4ax.com>, Steve
> ><stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
>
> >>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
> >>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> >>all about..
>
> >If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
> >business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>
> No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
> to turn things around..
>
> >GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
> >hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
> >>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
> >>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
> >>bankruptcy.
>
> >Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
> >American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>
> That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
> viable company today.
They did file for Chapter 11, stoopido. You were asleep throughout
>
> >>General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
> >>chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> >>all about..
>
> >If they'd went into Chapter 11 that would have given the impression to the
> >business world that the company couldn't have been turned around.
>
> No, Dummy.. Chapter 11 calls for a restructuring.. IOW, an attempt
> to turn things around..
>
> >GM is thriving now, Obama was right and Romney was wrong (no matter how
> >hard the weasel tries to squirm out of his own words).
>
> >>It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
> >>contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
> >>bankruptcy.
>
> >Republicans hate unions so much they were willing to destroy a venerable
> >American company just to damage the union, it's that simple.
>
> That's bullshit, of course. Had GM filed chapter 11 they would be a
> viable company today.
the whole of 2009, weren't you?
http://blogs.wsj.com/autoshow/2009/06/01/general-motors-chapter-11-filing/
Tracey12
Apr 28, 2012, 5:00:58 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 8:17 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
>
> >> General Election: Romney vs. Obama
> >> Obama 47.6%
> >> Romney 43.9%
>
> >> Obama Job Approval:
> >> Approve 48.1%
> >> Disapprove 47.4%
>
> >> Congressional Job Approval:
> >> Approve 14%
> >> Disapprove 78
>
> >> Direction of country:
> >> Right direction 32%
> >> Wrong direction 60.8%http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
> >> screaming about reds under the bed. I thought you would have grown
> >> out of that by now.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 4:40 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> >> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >If everything remains the same, by Nov. Obama will be booted from
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 27, 4:40 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> >> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >office in a giant ;protest at the Mall in DC.
>
> >> General Election: Romney vs. Obama
> >> Obama 47.6%
> >> Romney 43.9%
>
> >> Obama Job Approval:
> >> Approve 48.1%
> >> Disapprove 47.4%
>
> >> Congressional Job Approval:
> >> Approve 14%
> >> Disapprove 78
>
> >> Direction of country:
> >> Right direction 32%
> >> Wrong direction 60.8%http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/
>
> >> >Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> >> >will.
>
> >> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> >> heading that way. It still amazes me that even today americans are
> >> >Americans' are sick of communism. It does not work, never has, never
> >> >will.
>
> >> Clearly you know nothing about communism if you think your country is
> >> screaming about reds under the bed. I thought you would have grown
> >> out of that by now.
>
> >> --
> >> Ferrit
>
> >> ()'.'.'()
> >> ( (T) )
> >> ( ) . ( )
> >> (")_(")
>
> >> --
> >> Ferrit
>
> >> ()'.'.'()
> >> ( (T) )
> >> ( ) . ( )
> >> (")_(")
>
> >Do you believe:
> >1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> >property
> >for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
> >at
> >fair market value;
> >1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> >property
> >for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
> >at
> >fair market value;
> >2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> >consumption tax;
> >consumption tax;
> >3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
> >4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
> >5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> >Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
> >Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
> >6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> >"public airwaves";
> >"public airwaves";
> >7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
>
>
> General motors didn't need saving because they could have filed
> chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> all about.. It was about the UAW wanting Obama to save the GM/UAW
> chapter 11 bankruptcy.... and that wasn't what Obama's actions were
> contracts that would have been wiped out had GM filed for chapter 11
> bankruptcy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> bankruptcy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
> >9. in opposition to school vouchers?
But, they didnt refuse the money, did they?
Tracey12
Apr 28, 2012, 5:41:17 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:02 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > this has happened. It is how most military bases expanded and how
> > airbases were built during the war to defend my country. What I do
> > not accept is the fact that people were not given the true value of
> > their loss.
> > governments. How do you measure your use of the military? How do you
> > use measure your use of the diplomat who manages to arrange an
> > overseas order for a company?
> > wealthy but now due to the limits not being moved it is taxing far
> > more than originally envisioned.
> > do realise that there is relief for tax suffered abroad.
> > If you do not do this all the wealthy will simply ensure they earn all
> > profits in an other country to avoid tax, do you agree with that?
> > your airwaves it would then be wrong to demand that the owner give
> > them up to some 3rd party. Just as you would not want somebody
> > telling you that you have to share your property with some 3rd party.
>
> > I do however agree with preventing any one group, company or
> > individual monopolising the airwaves.
> > companies with grants towards loan interest on start up companies, but
> > if a company cannot survive I see no point in using government money
> > to bail them out. If they are viable, the banks would lend to them.
> > the correct removal of incompetent staff. But then I have also seen
> > them as the only ones to act when a member of staff deserved
> > protection from an abusive employer.
> > for it. State schooling will only suffer further because money is
> > taken out of the system. I especially object to this where the
> > school is promoting bigotry wrapped up in the name of religion. Hate
> > is wrong no matter how it is presented.
>
> > What are your views on these?
> the people recognize them for what they are; they are 9 existing laws
> that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
>
> I avoid the accusation of "communism" simply because it evokes such
> strong emotion that it stops any logical thought, BUT Tracy already
> let the word out.
>
> We have allowed our government to step on our lives in such baby steps
> that we haven't even noticed the oppression. Our Constitution
> guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their ...,
> papers,..." BUT read the "Bank Secrecy Act of 1970"
>
> Our Constitution states that the government has to pay fair market
> value for a citizens property, BUT we have allowed the EPA to seize
> control of a person's private property without any compensation.
or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
As you mentioned, the use of certain words turns off logical thought
in some people. Communism is all about us now, but its called many
things other than what it really is.
> On Apr 27, 10:19 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Do you believe:
> > >1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > >property
> > >for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
> > >at
> > >fair market value;
>
> > No, but I accept that sometimes for the supposed "good of the people"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 06:09:41 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Do you believe:
> > >1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > >property
> > >for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property
> > >at
> > >fair market value;
>
> > this has happened. It is how most military bases expanded and how
> > airbases were built during the war to defend my country. What I do
> > not accept is the fact that people were not given the true value of
> > their loss.
>
> > >2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > >consumption tax;
>
> > Yes. We cannot measure the consumption of all things provided by the
> > >2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > >consumption tax;
>
> > governments. How do you measure your use of the military? How do you
> > use measure your use of the diplomat who manages to arrange an
> > overseas order for a company?
>
> > >3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > Not at its current rate. At one time this did only tax the very
> > >3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > wealthy but now due to the limits not being moved it is taxing far
> > more than originally envisioned.
>
> > >4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > Yes. Why should he not be taxed just because it is earned abroad? You
> > >4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > do realise that there is relief for tax suffered abroad.
> > If you do not do this all the wealthy will simply ensure they earn all
> > profits in an other country to avoid tax, do you agree with that?
>
> > >5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > >Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
> > I do not know what this act is. So I can offer no opinion.
> > >5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > >Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
>
> > >6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > >"public airwaves";
>
> > Depends on what you mean by equal time and forcing it. If you sell
> > >6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > >"public airwaves";
>
> > your airwaves it would then be wrong to demand that the owner give
> > them up to some 3rd party. Just as you would not want somebody
> > telling you that you have to share your property with some 3rd party.
>
> > I do however agree with preventing any one group, company or
> > individual monopolising the airwaves.
>
> > >7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
>
> > I have never believed in saving companies. We should help new
> > >7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
>
> > companies with grants towards loan interest on start up companies, but
> > if a company cannot survive I see no point in using government money
> > to bail them out. If they are viable, the banks would lend to them.
>
> > >8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > To a certain extent, I dislike the way some unions attempt to prevent
> > >8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > the correct removal of incompetent staff. But then I have also seen
> > them as the only ones to act when a member of staff deserved
> > protection from an abusive employer.
>
> > >9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > Certainly. If you do not wish to make use of state schools then pay
> > >9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > for it. State schooling will only suffer further because money is
> > taken out of the system. I especially object to this where the
> > school is promoting bigotry wrapped up in the name of religion. Hate
> > is wrong no matter how it is presented.
>
> > What are your views on these?
>
> > --
> > Ferrit
>
> > ()'.'.'()
> > ( (T) )
> > ( ) . ( )
> > (")_(")
>
> My view of these isn't important. What is important is whether or not
> > --
> > Ferrit
>
> > ()'.'.'()
> > ( (T) )
> > ( ) . ( )
> > (")_(")
>
> the people recognize them for what they are; they are 9 existing laws
> that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
>
> I avoid the accusation of "communism" simply because it evokes such
> strong emotion that it stops any logical thought, BUT Tracy already
> let the word out.
>
> We have allowed our government to step on our lives in such baby steps
> that we haven't even noticed the oppression. Our Constitution
> guarantees "The right of the people to be secure in their ...,
> papers,..." BUT read the "Bank Secrecy Act of 1970"
>
> Our Constitution states that the government has to pay fair market
> value for a citizens property, BUT we have allowed the EPA to seize
> control of a person's private property without any compensation.
>
> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
As you mentioned, the use of certain words turns off logical thought
in some people. Communism is all about us now, but its called many
things other than what it really is.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 5:44:24 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:36:54 -0700 (PDT), "Erika Westergrom,1900
Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>>
>> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>>
>> IDIOT>
>
>You're a fucking liar. According to Pelosi they had to pass the bill
>to find out whats in it.
What? How the hell does your government vote on bills without reading
Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>>
>> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>>
>> IDIOT>
>
>You're a fucking liar. According to Pelosi they had to pass the bill
>to find out whats in it.
them first?
As I understood it a bill first goes to committee for discussion, then
debated on the floor, voted on and moves back into committee before
returning to the floor for a plenary debate.
And during all this nobody has actually looked at the contents of the
bill? What kind of government is that?
Mike Smith
Apr 28, 2012, 6:05:06 AM4/28/12
to
above is almost a direct quote from the anti-American socialist/former
Speaker of the House from San Fran.
Mike Smith
Tom Gardner
Apr 28, 2012, 6:18:46 AM4/28/12
to
On 4/27/2012 10:30 PM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
complete destruction of the economy.
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:21:09 -0700, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
>>> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>>
>> Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
>> under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> wrote:
>
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
>>> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>>
>> Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
>> under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> THen why did the "Heritage Foundation", the preeminent policy making
> institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>
> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> IDIOT>
Except the libtards filled it with libtard "Easter Eggs" that insure
>
> It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> IDIOT>
complete destruction of the economy.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 6:59:26 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
<tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
>> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>
>Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
>or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
>whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
>allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
Except she fucked it up by not actually using the 10 planks of
<tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
>> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>
>Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
>or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
>whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
>allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
communism. So you walked right into her trap of bringing you down to
her ignorance. Well done for falling for it.
Tracey12
Apr 28, 2012, 6:59:51 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 1:15 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> You're a rebel without a cause.
You're a Communist without a brain. As a canuck who lives in highly
socialized Canada, how can you begin to understand the concept of
limited government,
> You're a rebel without a cause.
You're a Communist without a brain. As a canuck who lives in highly
socialized Canada, how can you begin to understand the concept of
limited government,
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:27:33 AM4/28/12
to
taxpayer-financed bus the US government had custom built -- in Canada.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:37:32 AM4/28/12
to
they "fix" the US health care system, where will seriously ill Canadians go?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 10:02:26 AM4/28/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> Wingers have all but destroyed industry in AMerica---now you're
> blaming the ones who had nothing to do with it.
The difference between free-market capitalism and centrally-planned
liberal Democrat socialism is plenty.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 05:27:33 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> President Obama barnstormed the heartland to boost US jobs in a
>> taxpayer-financed bus the US government had custom built -- in Canada.
>
> What did you expect
> wrote:
>
>> President Obama barnstormed the heartland to boost US jobs in a
>> taxpayer-financed bus the US government had custom built -- in Canada.
>
>
> Wingers have all but destroyed industry in AMerica---now you're
> blaming the ones who had nothing to do with it.
The difference between free-market capitalism and centrally-planned
liberal Democrat socialism is plenty.
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 10:27:19 AM4/28/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:jYudnVZO8_-fZAbS...@giganews.com...
Businesses have been regulated almost through the entire 20th Century.
Who feeds you this dribble?
Democrat Socialism?
More nonsense. We have nothing like a "centrally-planned" economy.
Who feeds you this dribble?
Looks straight out of the discredited Gingrich playbook.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 10:52:17 AM4/28/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> Sure--anyone conversant with American History knows what "limited
> government" caused by 1929.
>
Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
weather?
> government" caused by 1929.
>
Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
weather?
wy
Apr 28, 2012, 11:01:23 AM4/28/12
to
that hashing it out over committee and debating bills *is* reading
them. Not only that, but members can also slip in last-minute riders
with little or no connection to the bill itself without anybody
noticing them before they get passed and something that wasn't even
brought up or intended for discussion suddenly becomes law. It's a
thoroughly stupid abuse of the bill writing process, so no wonder the
US is in the mess it's in when it comes to its byzantine legislations.
wy
Apr 28, 2012, 11:02:05 AM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 6:18 am, Tom Gardner <mars@tacks> wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 10:30 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:21:09 -0700, linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com>
> On 4/27/2012 10:30 PM, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 16:21:09 -0700, linuxgal<linux...@cleanposts.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Sid9 wrote:
>
> >>> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> >>> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>
> >> Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
> >> under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> > THen why did the "Heritage Foundation", the preeminent policy making
> > institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> > (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> > You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> > The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>
> > It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> > IDIOT>
>
> Except the libtards filled it with libtard "Easter Eggs" that insure
> complete destruction of the economy.
Easter just passed, nothing got destroyed.
>
> >> Sid9 wrote:
>
> >>> Obamacare simply is a plan for paying for it and relieving the burden on
> >>> taxpayers for those who refuse to pay their fair share.
>
> >> Americans hate it when other people pick our wallet and our doctor, but
> >> under ObamaCare the government does both.
>
> > THen why did the "Heritage Foundation", the preeminent policy making
> > institution of the Republican party, originate the present health care
> > (WITH MANDATE) and republicans adopted it.
>
> > You do understand that's where Romney got the MA HC, don't you?
>
> > The HC act pushed by Obama is NOT an "Obama" idea
>
> > It was a REPUBLICAN idea and policy
>
> > IDIOT>
>
> Except the libtards filled it with libtard "Easter Eggs" that insure
> complete destruction of the economy.
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 11:36:45 AM4/28/12
to
news:45OdnYctKbi1mQHS...@giganews.com...
Another diversion instead of a response!
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 12:40:18 PM4/28/12
to
Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>
> The issue was Bush's administration screwing the pooch--handing out
> appointments to incompetent assholes.
I'm addressing your claim that limited government caused the market
crash of 1929. My claim is that markets are subject to random forces,
just like weather. If you want to talk about mismanagement after the
fact, ala Katrina, then we can open the history book on the New Deal.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:52:17 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Sure--anyone conversant with American History knows what "limited
>>> government" caused by 1929.
>>>
>> Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
>> weather?
>
> "Weather" wasn't the Katrina issue, stupid
> wrote:
>
>>> Sure--anyone conversant with American History knows what "limited
>>> government" caused by 1929.
>>>
>> Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
>> weather?
>
>
> The issue was Bush's administration screwing the pooch--handing out
> appointments to incompetent assholes.
I'm addressing your claim that limited government caused the market
crash of 1929. My claim is that markets are subject to random forces,
just like weather. If you want to talk about mismanagement after the
fact, ala Katrina, then we can open the history book on the New Deal.
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 1:09:43 PM4/28/12
to
news:4tSdnV3_v9eegwHS...@giganews.com...
Those "random forces" are not at all like the weather.
We CANNOT control the weather....
We have controlled our financial stability from 1935 to 2008 when the
deregulation foisted on us by Republican St Reagan and bush,jr took hold and
nearly sent us into a depression.
Fortunately Republican bush,jr was packed and waiting for the moving van to
take him back to Texas...Texas, where he hides out this very day
We CANNOT control the weather....
We have controlled our financial stability from 1935 to 2008 when the
deregulation foisted on us by Republican St Reagan and bush,jr took hold and
nearly sent us into a depression.
Fortunately Republican bush,jr was packed and waiting for the moving van to
take him back to Texas...Texas, where he hides out this very day
Patrick
Apr 28, 2012, 1:48:00 PM4/28/12
to
"Dennis M" > wrote
> GM is a viable company today and posted its most profitable year ever in
> 2011, no thanks to far-right Republican ideologues.
You can thank the unions for screwing all the retired GM employees.
> Maybe you demented assholes can have better luck destroying the US Postal
> Service and their union -- tens of thousands of jobs be damned.
Tens of thousands of useless, wasted jobs for overpaid,
underemployed, over-unionized, wasted wimps. Stop
Saturday mail. Stop whining about it. Cut back on
benefits, inflated wages, and put a decent management
team in. Close all the small post offices that are within
2 miles of a larger post office.
> GM is a viable company today and posted its most profitable year ever in
> 2011, no thanks to far-right Republican ideologues.
You can thank the unions for screwing all the retired GM employees.
> Maybe you demented assholes can have better luck destroying the US Postal
> Service and their union -- tens of thousands of jobs be damned.
Tens of thousands of useless, wasted jobs for overpaid,
underemployed, over-unionized, wasted wimps. Stop
Saturday mail. Stop whining about it. Cut back on
benefits, inflated wages, and put a decent management
team in. Close all the small post offices that are within
2 miles of a larger post office.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 1:56:44 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:48:00 -0400, "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com>
wrote:
>Tens of thousands of useless, wasted jobs for overpaid,
>underemployed, over-unionized, wasted wimps.
Is that really how you would define the catholic church?
"+ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was born in Germany in 1927.
+ He is 77 years old now. with many enemies. He hasn't got a
chance."
- P.Barker 8/8/04
"+ I am certainly aware of what the real Cardinal Ratzinger.....
he is a human, a man, a person who overstepped his boundaries
on more than one occasion. He is the pope wannabe and his
glorious reign (as you seem to think he has) will soon be over."
- P.Barker 1/9/04
wrote:
>Tens of thousands of useless, wasted jobs for overpaid,
>underemployed, over-unionized, wasted wimps.
"+ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was born in Germany in 1927.
+ He is 77 years old now. with many enemies. He hasn't got a
chance."
- P.Barker 8/8/04
"+ I am certainly aware of what the real Cardinal Ratzinger.....
he is a human, a man, a person who overstepped his boundaries
on more than one occasion. He is the pope wannabe and his
glorious reign (as you seem to think he has) will soon be over."
- P.Barker 1/9/04
Erika Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Apr 28, 2012, 1:31:36 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 11:25 am, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
of defence,Nagan and the Governor.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:52:17 -0700, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Sure--anyone conversant with American History knows what "limited
> >> government" caused by 1929.
>
> >Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
> >weather?
>
> wrote:
>
> >> Sure--anyone conversant with American History knows what "limited
> >> government" caused by 1929.
>
> >Sure, just like limited government caused Katrina. Fuck, ever hear of
> >weather?
>
> "Weather" wasn't the Katrina issue, stupid
>
> The issue was Bush's administration screwing the pooch--handing out
> appointments to incompetent assholes.
Yeh,never mind the two incopetent jackasses that were the first line
>
> The issue was Bush's administration screwing the pooch--handing out
> appointments to incompetent assholes.
of defence,Nagan and the Governor.
jane
Apr 28, 2012, 2:14:17 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:43 pm, Linda Austin <lindajanete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:04 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:21 am, Sir Ray <waterboi5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart"
> > > Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
> > > Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
>
> > > On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do you believe:
> > > > 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > > > property
> > > > for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
>
> > > Are you conflating regulation with eminient domain here? What are you
> > > trying to do here?> 2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > > > consumption tax;
> > > Oh, hell yes.
> > > > 3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > > The Estate Tax is a very good idea, and has worked well over the
> > > decades it has been in force.> 4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > > Yes, it's still income to the person (or corporation)> 5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > > > Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
> > > The act was actually somewhat weak, but still better than nothing> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > > > "public airwaves";
>
> > > To bad we can't force all the useless Right-Wing talk radio stations
> > > to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
> > > Yes
> > > > 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > > Unions create contracts with employers; these contracts define the
> > > wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
> > > that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
> > > dispute.> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > > Vouchers for private religions education - yes, any sane person would
> > > object
>
> > > So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
> > > any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
>
> > Congratulations Sir Ray, you not only failed to recognize 9 of the "10
> > Planks of the Communist Manifesto", you also called them "some common
> > sense ideas".
>
> 9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto??? The pavilion of
> women, perhaps? Worker ownership of the means of production? You are a
> medtal freakshow aren't you? You want to talk Communists? So did
> Hitler. That was his excuse for suspending civil rights in Germany.
> That was also his excuse for invading Austria.
Take a look at the 10 planks and look at the examples that I
presented. I am not claiming that we are moving towards communism or
am I claiming that we will become communists. I am simply saying that
we are implementing the Marxist planks in baby steps.
Take a look at the first one. Presume that you and I both have
property that has been in our families for generations. Yours is on
high ground and mine is on swampy ground. You build a subdivision and
make millions. I decide to fill in my swamp land and do the same.
The EPA steps in and says, your swamp land is being seized for the
public and we will pay you fair market value for your property; that
would be acceptable and the Constitution has a provision for this very
situation.
HOWEVER, that is not how it happens. The EPA circumvents paying fair
market value by seizing control of the private property rather than
seizing ownership. We all sit by and do nothing while the government
seizes control and the property owner is left without fair
compensation.
> On Apr 27, 11:04 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 9:21 am, Sir Ray <waterboi5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Shhhhh....Don't Tell Democrats The Economy Is Falling Apart"
> > > Well, Tracey, since that isn't true, don't worry, we won't.
> > > Progressives don't lie like tighty-rigties do.
>
> > > On Apr 27, 9:09 am, jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote:> Do you believe:
> > > > 1. that government should seize control and regulate private
> > > > property
> > > > for economic or environmental reasons rather than buying the property at fair market value;
>
> > > Are you conflating regulation with eminient domain here? What are you
> > > trying to do here?> 2. that we should have a graduated income tax rather than a
> > > > consumption tax;
> > > Oh, hell yes.
> > > > 3. we should seize a persons inheritance with an inheritance tax;
>
> > > The Estate Tax is a very good idea, and has worked well over the
> > > decades it has been in force.> 4. we should tax a citizen's profits on overseas income;
>
> > > Yes, it's still income to the person (or corporation)> 5. in the The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
> > > > Act (Pub.L. 111-203, H.R. 4173);
>
> > > The act was actually somewhat weak, but still better than nothing> 6. we should regulate communication and force equal time over the
> > > > "public airwaves";
>
> > > To bad we can't force all the useless Right-Wing talk radio stations
> > > to play actual programming, but there's that first amendment thing.> 7. we should have saved General Motors the way that we did;
> > > Yes
> > > > 8. in unions to regulate and labor and assure proper wages;
>
> > > Unions create contracts with employers; these contracts define the
> > > wages and work requirements. Government is just involved to ensure
> > > that both sides follow the terms of their contract, like any legal
> > > dispute.> 9. in opposition to school vouchers?
>
> > > Vouchers for private religions education - yes, any sane person would
> > > object
>
> > > So far, can't see anything there that would be considered communism by
> > > any stretch, just some common sense ideas.
>
> > Congratulations Sir Ray, you not only failed to recognize 9 of the "10
> > Planks of the Communist Manifesto", you also called them "some common
> > sense ideas".
>
> 9 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto??? The pavilion of
> women, perhaps? Worker ownership of the means of production? You are a
> medtal freakshow aren't you? You want to talk Communists? So did
> Hitler. That was his excuse for suspending civil rights in Germany.
> That was also his excuse for invading Austria.
Take a look at the 10 planks and look at the examples that I
presented. I am not claiming that we are moving towards communism or
am I claiming that we will become communists. I am simply saying that
we are implementing the Marxist planks in baby steps.
Take a look at the first one. Presume that you and I both have
property that has been in our families for generations. Yours is on
high ground and mine is on swampy ground. You build a subdivision and
make millions. I decide to fill in my swamp land and do the same.
The EPA steps in and says, your swamp land is being seized for the
public and we will pay you fair market value for your property; that
would be acceptable and the Constitution has a provision for this very
situation.
HOWEVER, that is not how it happens. The EPA circumvents paying fair
market value by seizing control of the private property rather than
seizing ownership. We all sit by and do nothing while the government
seizes control and the property owner is left without fair
compensation.
jane
Apr 28, 2012, 2:36:21 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 6:59 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
> >> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>
> >Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
> >or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
> >whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
> >allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
>
> Except she fucked it up by not actually using the 10 planks of
> communism. So you walked right into her trap of bringing you down to
> her ignorance. Well done for falling for it.
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
I didn't claim to be "using the 10 planks of communism", I presented 9
existing laws
that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
For example, the first plank is:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
The EPA seizure of control of private property is not the Abolition of
private property, as the first plank states, but it is an example of
seizing control without compensation as the US Constitution requires.
The EPA can get around the fair market compensation requirement
because they are not seizing ownership, HOWEVER, the EPA is taking
value away from the property owner by seizing control.
The second plank is implemented exactly.
The third: Abolition of all right of inheritance. As I said, I did
not use the 10 planks, I presented 9 existing laws. We did not
abolish ALL rights of inheritance, but our inheritance tax is AN
example of where we are taking away some of the right of inheritance.
The above three laws and each of the following laws are not planks of
communism, they are implementations of MARX's planks.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>
> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
> >> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>
> >Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
> >or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
> >whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
> >allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
>
> Except she fucked it up by not actually using the 10 planks of
> communism. So you walked right into her trap of bringing you down to
> her ignorance. Well done for falling for it.
>
> --
> Ferrit
>
> ()'.'.'()
> ( (T) )
> ( ) . ( )
> (")_(")
I didn't claim to be "using the 10 planks of communism", I presented 9
existing laws
that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
For example, the first plank is:
Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.
The EPA seizure of control of private property is not the Abolition of
private property, as the first plank states, but it is an example of
seizing control without compensation as the US Constitution requires.
The EPA can get around the fair market compensation requirement
because they are not seizing ownership, HOWEVER, the EPA is taking
value away from the property owner by seizing control.
The second plank is implemented exactly.
The third: Abolition of all right of inheritance. As I said, I did
not use the 10 planks, I presented 9 existing laws. We did not
abolish ALL rights of inheritance, but our inheritance tax is AN
example of where we are taking away some of the right of inheritance.
The above three laws and each of the following laws are not planks of
communism, they are implementations of MARX's planks.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 3:08:28 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:36:21 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Apr 28, 6:59 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>>
>> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
>> >> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>>
>> >Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
>> >or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
>> >whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
>> >allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
>>
>> Except she fucked it up by not actually using the 10 planks of
>> communism. So you walked right into her trap of bringing you down to
>> her ignorance. Well done for falling for it.
>>
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>
>I didn't claim to be "using the 10 planks of communism", I presented 9
>existing laws
>that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
Except that more than one person has shown that they do not.
Show 1 example that fits where all private ownership of land has been
removed.
Your claim that somebody should be able to ignore laws and planning
regulations so that they can fill in a marsh has nothing to do with
communism or even moving towards communism.
If you do not like what is being done than use the power of democracy.
Under Communism you would not own the Land and would certainly not be
allowed to moan about it.
wrote:
>On Apr 28, 6:59 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 02:41:17 -0700 (PDT), Tracey12
>>
>> <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Baby-step by Baby-step, we are implementing the "10 Planks of the
>> >> Communist Manifesto" and nobody is taking notice.
>>
>> >Very good. Maybe you laid this trap that liberals walked right into,
>> >or you explained a concept that liberals failed to recognize, but
>> >whether it was purposeful or not, you got the libs perfectly which
>> >allowed them to expose their acceptance of Communism.
>>
>> Except she fucked it up by not actually using the 10 planks of
>> communism. So you walked right into her trap of bringing you down to
>> her ignorance. Well done for falling for it.
>>
>> --
>> Ferrit
>>
>> ()'.'.'()
>> ( (T) )
>> ( ) . ( )
>> (")_(")
>
>I didn't claim to be "using the 10 planks of communism", I presented 9
>existing laws
>that implement 9 of the "10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto".
Show 1 example that fits where all private ownership of land has been
removed.
Your claim that somebody should be able to ignore laws and planning
regulations so that they can fill in a marsh has nothing to do with
communism or even moving towards communism.
If you do not like what is being done than use the power of democracy.
Under Communism you would not own the Land and would certainly not be
allowed to moan about it.
jane
Apr 28, 2012, 4:04:38 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 3:08 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:36:21 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
I didn't say that a person should. HOWEVER, the laws and regulations
should abide by our Constitutional protections. If the public takes
complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
then that lost value should be paid for. We have examples in the
private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
restriction of use. The land owner has two options, accept payment
for loss of value or complete and total sale. In the former, the
farmer can not sell the property for a subdivision, loss of value, but
he can continue to farm under it.
In the case of swamp land, it is recognized that it is in the public
interest to keep the property as swamp land, but the land owner should
be paid for the property or for loss of use. WE have a Constitution
that provides for that procedure.
>so that they can fill in a marsh has nothing to do with
> communism or even moving towards communism.
>
I never said it was moving towards communism. I simply said it was an
implementation of one of Marx's ideas.
> If you do not like what is being done than use the power of democracy.
Our Founding Fathers despised democracy, the tyranny of the majority,
mob rule.
We have a Constitutional Republic, rule of law, not rule of the
mob.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:36:21 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
should abide by our Constitutional protections. If the public takes
complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
then that lost value should be paid for. We have examples in the
private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
restriction of use. The land owner has two options, accept payment
for loss of value or complete and total sale. In the former, the
farmer can not sell the property for a subdivision, loss of value, but
he can continue to farm under it.
In the case of swamp land, it is recognized that it is in the public
interest to keep the property as swamp land, but the land owner should
be paid for the property or for loss of use. WE have a Constitution
that provides for that procedure.
>so that they can fill in a marsh has nothing to do with
> communism or even moving towards communism.
>
implementation of one of Marx's ideas.
> If you do not like what is being done than use the power of democracy.
mob rule.
We have a Constitutional Republic, rule of law, not rule of the
mob.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 4:39:56 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> If the public takes
>complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
>then that lost value should be paid for.
So if you own a piece of land and zoning says you cannot build there
you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
If the law does not entitle you to do something, then tough. Else
people could do what they like and ignore everybody else.
However, if the government is taking your land then I agree with your
constitution that people should be rewarded for that. Shame this
same right was not given to many natives who owned the land.
>We have examples in the
>private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
>company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
>of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
>restriction of use.
Not the same, they are taking a piece of your land to place the
transmission tower on it. They are not preventing you under the law
from doing something that you are not entitled to do.
wrote:
> If the public takes
>complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
>then that lost value should be paid for.
you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
If the law does not entitle you to do something, then tough. Else
people could do what they like and ignore everybody else.
However, if the government is taking your land then I agree with your
constitution that people should be rewarded for that. Shame this
same right was not given to many natives who owned the land.
>We have examples in the
>private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
>company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
>of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
>restriction of use.
transmission tower on it. They are not preventing you under the law
from doing something that you are not entitled to do.
jane
Apr 28, 2012, 6:00:12 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 4:39 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
bought the swamp land at swamp land prices because the EPA already
designated it as swamp land, then no compensation.
> If the law does not entitle you to do something, then tough. Else
> people could do what they like and ignore everybody else.
>
No, because the Constitution grants the government the power to TAKE
your property to prevent you form doing something. However the
Seizure must be in exchange of fair market value.
> However, if the government is taking your land then I agree with your
> constitution that people should be rewarded for that.
What is the difference between complete and partial, diminished
value?
Why should the loss of value be paid ONLY if the loss is a complete
loss?
Presume you own a pristine classic car that is about to be sold for
$20,000. The day before the sale someone hits it and pays for the
repair. However, since the classic is no longer pristine, it is only
worth $10,000. That is diminished value. If the EPA says that you
can no longer sell to a developer, then that is diminished value.
>Shame this
> same right was not given to many natives who owned the land.
>
There were many, many wrongs in the past. It happened in your
country, but it was so long ago that no one remembers. Or maybe they
do; I am not as familiar with your common knowledge.
> >We have examples in the
> >private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
> >company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
> >of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
> >restriction of use.
>
> Not the same, they are taking a piece of your land to place the
> transmission tower on it. They are not preventing you under the law
> from doing something that you are not entitled to do.
They are not taking your land, other than the small portion for the
tower, they are diminishing the value of your land by preventing you
from building under the power lines.
In the case of the EPA, they are preventing you from building on the
land, even if you leave the swamp and build your house above the
water.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:04:38 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > If the public takes
> >complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
> >then that lost value should be paid for.
>
> So if you own a piece of land and zoning says you cannot build there
> you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
Only once, If you bought the land before the zoning change. If you
>
> > If the public takes
> >complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
> >then that lost value should be paid for.
>
> So if you own a piece of land and zoning says you cannot build there
> you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
bought the swamp land at swamp land prices because the EPA already
designated it as swamp land, then no compensation.
> If the law does not entitle you to do something, then tough. Else
> people could do what they like and ignore everybody else.
>
your property to prevent you form doing something. However the
Seizure must be in exchange of fair market value.
> However, if the government is taking your land then I agree with your
> constitution that people should be rewarded for that.
value?
Why should the loss of value be paid ONLY if the loss is a complete
loss?
Presume you own a pristine classic car that is about to be sold for
$20,000. The day before the sale someone hits it and pays for the
repair. However, since the classic is no longer pristine, it is only
worth $10,000. That is diminished value. If the EPA says that you
can no longer sell to a developer, then that is diminished value.
>Shame this
> same right was not given to many natives who owned the land.
>
country, but it was so long ago that no one remembers. Or maybe they
do; I am not as familiar with your common knowledge.
> >We have examples in the
> >private sector that is is regulated by the public sector. If a Power
> >company needs to put high voltage transmission lines down the middle
> >of your property the power company can not simply claim ownership or
> >restriction of use.
>
> Not the same, they are taking a piece of your land to place the
> transmission tower on it. They are not preventing you under the law
> from doing something that you are not entitled to do.
tower, they are diminishing the value of your land by preventing you
from building under the power lines.
In the case of the EPA, they are preventing you from building on the
land, even if you leave the swamp and build your house above the
water.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 7:55:28 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:00:12 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Presume you own a pristine classic car that is about to be sold for
>$20,000. The day before the sale someone hits it and pays for the
>repair. However, since the classic is no longer pristine, it is only
>worth $10,000.
Somebody has damaged the goods, the asset is not the same as before.
>That is diminished value. If the EPA says that you
>can no longer sell to a developer, then that is diminished value.
If he brought the land, managed to get the government to agree
planning, he can sell the land for a lot of money, do you expect him
to pay the government for increasing the value of his land by granting
that permission? If not, why do you expect them to pay him for
denying him that permission?
It is called speculating in land. People take the gamble that land
might go up in value, sometimes they loose. Do you think the
government should fund everybody who looses money?
wrote:
>Presume you own a pristine classic car that is about to be sold for
>$20,000. The day before the sale someone hits it and pays for the
>repair. However, since the classic is no longer pristine, it is only
>worth $10,000.
>That is diminished value. If the EPA says that you
>can no longer sell to a developer, then that is diminished value.
planning, he can sell the land for a lot of money, do you expect him
to pay the government for increasing the value of his land by granting
that permission? If not, why do you expect them to pay him for
denying him that permission?
It is called speculating in land. People take the gamble that land
might go up in value, sometimes they loose. Do you think the
government should fund everybody who looses money?
Patrick
Apr 28, 2012, 8:14:19 PM4/28/12
to
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote .
Stay away from ferrit.
He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
Don't tell him any personal information.
He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
On Apr 28, 4:39 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > If the public takes
> >complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
> >then that lost value should be paid for.
> So if you own a piece of land and zoning says you cannot build there
> you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
Only once, If you bought the land before the zoning change. If you
bought the swamp land at swamp land prices because the EPA already
designated it as swamp land, then no compensation.
WARNING.... WARNING....
> > If the public takes
> >complete ownership or partial ownership through restriction of use,
> >then that lost value should be paid for.
> So if you own a piece of land and zoning says you cannot build there
> you think you should be paid for that? How many times?
Only once, If you bought the land before the zoning change. If you
bought the swamp land at swamp land prices because the EPA already
designated it as swamp land, then no compensation.
Stay away from ferrit.
He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
Don't tell him any personal information.
He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
Alan Ferris
Apr 28, 2012, 8:24:21 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:14:19 -0400, "Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com>
wrote:
>WARNING.... WARNING....
>Stay away from ferrit.
>He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
>Don't tell him any personal information.
>He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
>And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
The real Patrick Barker:
From: "Pat Barker" <bark...@erinet.com>
Message-ID: <3d28f091$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:53:31 -0400
-------------------
+ $50.00 Reward
+ Payable in Money Order, Check, or bank draft.
+ To anyone with karen's present address in UK.
+ $100.00 Reward
+ To anyone with karen's Child's address, her work history, or other
data that can be used to hunt her down like a dog
+ E-Mail me at bark...@erinet.com
+ We'll work out the details.
-----------------
Want to know more about the sick person who would support church abuse
of children, well a quick google search found this information posted
by himself:
-------------------
From: "Patrick Barker" <barker...@erinet.com>
However, I will play your game if you like:
SSAN: 516-58-6276, 11 Sep 48,3025 Old Heritage Way, Beavercreek OH
45432, 426-8281, Sears, Pennies,
Visa, MC, Furrows, Bryant Lane, live in a house worth $137,500.
Retired, 2 children;
MELANIE BARKER BERKMEN
Husband: Mehmet Berkmen
Son: Kaan Berkmen
Melanie Berkmen
Suffolk University
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
41 Temple St.
Boston, MA 02114
http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:Melanie_berkmen
http://openwetware.org/wiki/Berkmen
http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=29045795
email: mberk...@suffolk.edu
Melissa and Christopher Kalt
Children: Ashley and Abigail
1645 KEN KLARE DR
Dayton, OH 45432-1911
(937) 426-8536
I have nothing to hide or fear.
----------------------
wrote:
>WARNING.... WARNING....
>Stay away from ferrit.
>He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
>Don't tell him any personal information.
>He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
>And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
From: "Pat Barker" <bark...@erinet.com>
Message-ID: <3d28f091$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:53:31 -0400
-------------------
+ $50.00 Reward
+ Payable in Money Order, Check, or bank draft.
+ To anyone with karen's present address in UK.
+ $100.00 Reward
+ To anyone with karen's Child's address, her work history, or other
data that can be used to hunt her down like a dog
+ E-Mail me at bark...@erinet.com
+ We'll work out the details.
-----------------
Want to know more about the sick person who would support church abuse
of children, well a quick google search found this information posted
by himself:
-------------------
From: "Patrick Barker" <barker...@erinet.com>
However, I will play your game if you like:
SSAN: 516-58-6276, 11 Sep 48,3025 Old Heritage Way, Beavercreek OH
45432, 426-8281, Sears, Pennies,
Visa, MC, Furrows, Bryant Lane, live in a house worth $137,500.
Retired, 2 children;
MELANIE BARKER BERKMEN
Husband: Mehmet Berkmen
Son: Kaan Berkmen
Melanie Berkmen
Suffolk University
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
41 Temple St.
Boston, MA 02114
http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:Melanie_berkmen
http://openwetware.org/wiki/Berkmen
http://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=29045795
email: mberk...@suffolk.edu
Melissa and Christopher Kalt
Children: Ashley and Abigail
1645 KEN KLARE DR
Dayton, OH 45432-1911
(937) 426-8536
I have nothing to hide or fear.
----------------------
Paul Duca
Apr 29, 2012, 6:27:08 AM4/29/12
to
bills....he doesn't mind THOSE being delayed.
Paul
Paul Duca
Apr 29, 2012, 6:29:04 AM4/29/12
to
On Apr 28, 8:24 pm, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:14:19 -0400, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com>
> ----------------------
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:14:19 -0400, "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com>
> wrote:
>
> >WARNING.... WARNING....
> >Stay away from ferrit.
> >He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
> >Don't tell him any personal information.
> >He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
> >And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
>
> The real Patrick Barker:
>
>
> >WARNING.... WARNING....
> >Stay away from ferrit.
> >He is an ass-hole who likes to suck people into lame discussions.
> >Don't tell him any personal information.
> >He will spam you, send e-mails to friends and family.
> >And even e-mail your place of business, your church, your clubs.
>
> The real Patrick Barker:
>
> From: "Pat Barker" <barker...@erinet.com>
> Message-ID: <3d28f091$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:53:31 -0400
> -------------------
> + $50.00 Reward
> + Payable in Money Order, Check, or bank draft.
> + To anyone with karen's present address in UK.
> + $100.00 Reward
> + To anyone with karen's Child's address, her work history, or other
> data that can be used to hunt her down like a dog
> + E-Mail me at barker...@erinet.com
> Message-ID: <3d28f091$0$3581$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>
> Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 21:53:31 -0400
> -------------------
> + $50.00 Reward
> + Payable in Money Order, Check, or bank draft.
> + To anyone with karen's present address in UK.
> + $100.00 Reward
> + To anyone with karen's Child's address, her work history, or other
> data that can be used to hunt her down like a dog
> + We'll work out the details.
> -----------------
>
> Want to know more about the sick person who would support church abuse
> of children, well a quick google search found this information posted
> by himself:
>
> -------------------
> From: "Patrick Barker" <barker...@erinet.com>
>
> However, I will play your game if you like:
> SSAN: 516-58-6276, 11 Sep 48,3025 Old Heritage Way, Beavercreek OH
> 45432, 426-8281, Sears, Pennies,
> Visa, MC, Furrows, Bryant Lane, live in a house worth $137,500.
> Retired, 2 children;
>
> MELANIE BARKER BERKMEN
> Husband: Mehmet Berkmen
> Son: Kaan Berkmen
> Melanie Berkmen
> Suffolk University
> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
> 41 Temple St.
> Boston, MA 02114http://openwetware.org/wiki/User:Melanie_berkmenhttp://openwetware.org/wiki/Berkmenhttp://www.cfkeep.org/html/snapshot.php?id=29045795
> -----------------
>
> Want to know more about the sick person who would support church abuse
> of children, well a quick google search found this information posted
> by himself:
>
> -------------------
> From: "Patrick Barker" <barker...@erinet.com>
>
> However, I will play your game if you like:
> SSAN: 516-58-6276, 11 Sep 48,3025 Old Heritage Way, Beavercreek OH
> 45432, 426-8281, Sears, Pennies,
> Visa, MC, Furrows, Bryant Lane, live in a house worth $137,500.
> Retired, 2 children;
>
> MELANIE BARKER BERKMEN
> Husband: Mehmet Berkmen
> Son: Kaan Berkmen
> Melanie Berkmen
> Suffolk University
> Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
> 41 Temple St.
> email: mberk...@suffolk.edu
>
> Melissa and Christopher Kalt
> Children: Ashley and Abigail
> 1645 KEN KLARE DR
> Dayton, OH 45432-1911
> (937) 426-8536
>
> I have nothing to hide or fear--just to brag about how much BETTER I am than you.
>
> Melissa and Christopher Kalt
> Children: Ashley and Abigail
> 1645 KEN KLARE DR
> Dayton, OH 45432-1911
> (937) 426-8536
>
> ----------------------
0 new messages