Limbaugh's Lack of Intelligence
george bush@tsniffsniff.net NYFD
He's never read a book!
Rush Limbaugh, The Second Coming of Albert Einstein, bwahahaha.............
Palin's book has been chosen as the new Charmin in Chinese sweat shops by
Stinky Fingers Magazine.
1-20-2013
Sarah Palin has you libby kooks workin' overtime - now that her
best-seller is hitting the stores.
You *know* that Sarah will be an issue for your messiah somewhere down
the road!
It would be amazing to have Mrs. Sarah Palin as the first female
President of The United States!!!! If for no other reason than to see
the daggers coming out of Hillary's eyes :^)
You libs better keep the throttle open on the Sarah-attacks, because you
know it, I know it, everyone knows it - Sarah *will* become your worst
nightmare somewhere down the road.........................
Sid9
"NYFD" <poor george bu...@tsniffsniff.net> wrote in message
news:hdl6b3$21h$1...@news.albasani.net...
.
Limbo said that! How dumb....!:
November 13, 2009
FACT CHECK: Palin's Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:10 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sarah Palin's new book reprises familiar claims
from the 2008 presidential campaign that haven't become any truer over
time.
Ignoring substantial parts of her record if not the facts, she depicts
herself as a frugal traveler on the taxpayer's dime, a reformer
without ties to powerful interests and a politician roguishly
indifferent to high ambition.
Palin goes adrift, at times, on more contemporary issues, too. She
criticizes President Barack Obama for pushing through a bailout
package that actually was achieved by his Republican predecessor
George W. Bush -- a package she seemed to support at the time.
A look at some of her statements in ''Going Rogue,'' obtained by The
Associated Press in advance of its release Tuesday:
------
PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state
business as Alaska governor, asking ''only'' for reasonably priced
rooms and not ''often'' going for the ''high-end, robe-and-slippers''
hotels.
THE FACTS: Although travel records indicate she usually opted for
less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed
five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury
hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City's
Central Park for a five-hour women's leadership conference in October
2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event
organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The
governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children's travel,
including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases
later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on
official business.
------
PALIN: Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small
donations, mostly from first-time givers, and turned back large checks
from big donors if her campaign perceived a conflict of interest.
THE FACTS: Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and
general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from
people and political action committees giving at least $500, according
to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that
individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.
Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.
She accepted $1,000 each from a state senator and his wife in the
weeks after the two Republican lawmakers' offices were raided by the
FBI as part of an investigation into a powerful Alaska oilfield
services company. After AP reported those donations during the
presidential campaign, she said she would give a comparative sum to
charity after the general election in 2010, a date set by state
election laws.
PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes
to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in
business, ''you'll have to be brave enough to fail.''
THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus
plan -- a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs
and government contracts -- and the federal bailout that Republican
presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W.
Bush signed.
Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice
presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ''taxpayers
cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems
on Wall Street.'' A week later, she said ''ultimately what the bailout
does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that
is needed to help shore up our economy.''
During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain
for being ''instrumental in bringing folks together'' to pass the $700
billion bailout. After that, she said ''it is a time of crisis and
government did have to step in.''
------
PALIN: Says Ronald Reagan faced an even worse recession than the one
that appears to be ending now, and ''showed us how to get out of one.
If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the
death tax once and for all.''
THE FACTS: The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not
repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when
Reagan was president.
Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The
recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd
month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial
meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October
2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to
climb.
------
PALIN: She says her team overseeing the development of a natural gas
pipeline set up an open, competitive bidding process that allowed any
company to compete for the right to build a 1,715-mile pipeline to
bring natural gas from Alaska to the Lower 48.
THE FACTS: Palin characterized the pipeline deal the same way before
an AP investigation found her team crafted terms that favored only a
few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited a company
with ties to her administration, TransCanada Corp. Despite promises
and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders during
the process, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major
candidate, including TransCanada.
------
PALIN: Criticizes an aide to her predecessor, Gov. Frank Murkowski,
for a conflict of interest because the aide represented the state in
negotiations over a gas pipeline and then left to work as a handsomely
paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil. Palin asserts her administration ended
all such arrangements, shoving a wedge in the revolving door between
special interests and the state capital.
THE FACTS: Palin ignores her own ''revolving door'' issue in office;
the leader of her own pipeline team was a former lobbyist for a
subsidiary of TransCanada, the company that ended up winning the
rights to build the pipeline.
------
PALIN: Writes about a city councilman in Wasilla, Alaska, who owned a
garbage truck company and tried to push through an ordinance requiring
residents of new subdivisions to pay for trash removal instead of
taking it to the dump for free -- this to illustrate conflicts of
interest she stood against as a public servant.
THE FACTS: As Wasilla mayor, Palin pressed for a special zoning
exception so she could sell her family's $327,000 house, then did not
keep a promise to remove a potential fire hazard on the property.
She asked the city council to loosen rules for snow machine races when
she and her husband owned a snow machine store, and cast a
tie-breaking vote to exempt taxes on aircraft when her father-in-law
owned one. But she stepped away from the table in 1997 when the
council considered a grant for the Iron Dog snow machine race in which
her husband competes.
------
PALIN: Says Obama has admitted that the climate change policy he seeks
will cause people's electricity bills to ''skyrocket.''
THE FACTS: She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in
January 2008, when he told San Francisco Chronicle editors that under
his cap-and-trade climate proposal, ''electricity rates would
necessarily skyrocket'' as utilities are forced to retrofit coal
burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Obama has argued since then that climate legislation can blunt the
cost to consumers. Democratic legislation now before Congress calls
for a variety of measures aimed at mitigating consumer costs. Several
studies predict average household costs probably would be $100 to $145
a year.
------
PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive
damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the
Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve
victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of
the victims, and she says the court's ruling went ''in favor of the
people.'' Finally, she writes, Alaskans could recover some of their
losses.
THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to
the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive
damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion.
Environmentalists and plaintiffs' lawyers decried the ruling as a slap
at the victims and Palin herself said she was ''extremely
disappointed.'' She said the justices had gutted a jury decision
favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported.
''It's tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have
had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision,'' she said,
noting many had died ''while waiting for justice.''
------
PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin
describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent
Americans who don't want ''help'' from government busybodies.
THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal
subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays
in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found
that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to
Washington.
------
PALIN: Says she tried to talk about national security and energy
independence in her interview with Vogue magazine but the interviewer
wanted her to pivot from hydropower to high fashion.
THE FACTS are somewhat in dispute. Vogue contributing editor Rebecca
Johnson said Palin did not go on about hydropower. ''She just kept
talking about drilling for oil.''
------
PALIN: ''Was it ambition? I didn't think so. Ambition drives; purpose
beckons.'' Throughout the book, Palin cites altruistic reasons for
running for office, and for leaving early as Alaska governor.
THE FACTS: Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power
and prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional
mold. But ''Going Rogue'' has all the characteristics of a
pre-campaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future
candidate.
Sid9
"1-20-2013" <0120...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
news:us2dnccmLYhZg2PX...@rcn.net...
.
.
Facts?
We don' need no stinkin facts!
What dummy researched the stuff she put in her book?
She's a straight out liar!
1-20-2013
Sarah tells the libloons to jump - and they jump.
Mrs. Sarah Palin will *indeed* become the liberals worse nightmare
somewhere down the road............................
Neolibertarian
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
> THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus
> plan -- a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs
> and government contracts -- and the federal bailout that Republican
> presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W.
> Bush signed.
We're ALL blurring those lines these days. Mostly because Obama turned
the TARP bill into a $700 billion slush fund. Bush was little better.
One thing your "fact checkers" can't bring them selves to acknowledge:
Yes McCain voted for it, and Bush not only signed it, but his own
Manchurian Secretary Paulson insisted on it--while all true, it's also a
fact that Barack Obama voted for it.
Not only do your "fact checkers" forget that, even Barack Obama forgets
it. You see, he likes to say "I inherited this big deficit."
Heh.
--
Neolibertarian
"I concluded that, unhappily, I'd been born into a world
dominated by a rampaging monster called 'law' that was both
all-powerful and all-stupid."
---Fred Hoyle
Sid9
.
.
Republican liars are just fine with you!
Hannity "screwed up" Bullshit....he lied.
Republican liars are just fine with you!
Limbo lies every day
Republican liars are just fine with you!
Palin is poor liar.....she should have fact checked.
Republican liars are just fine with you!
bush,jr lied us into war with disastrous results for America.
Republican liars are just fine with you!
Sid9
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:228$4afe258e$18f55223$30...@allthenewsgroups.com...
Scared of the lies and demonstration of incompetence in her book?
She'll make a great candidate in 2012 and 2016!
The New York Times
November 13, 2009
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
------
------
THE FACTS: Palin is blurring the lines between Obama's stimulus
plan -- a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs
and government contracts -- and the federal bailout that Republican
presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W.
Bush signed.
Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain's vice
george bush@tsniffsniff.net NYFD
>> Rush: Palin Memoir "One Of The Most Substantive Policy Books I've Read"
>>
>> He's never read a book!
>>
>> Rush Limbaugh, The Second Coming of Albert Einstein,
>> bwahahaha.............
>>
>> Palin's book has been chosen as the new Charmin in Chinese sweat shops by
>> Stinky Fingers Magazine.
>
> Sarah Palin has you libby kooks workin' overtime - now that her
> best-seller is hitting the stores.
She's a loser.
She's a quitter.
She's a child neglecter and abuser.
She's a sex harasser.
She's a crook, a liar and a thief.
And the Republicans suck her butthole,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...............
Neolibertarian
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> Scared of the lies and demonstration of incompetence in her book?
> She'll make a great candidate in 2012 and 2016!
You're visibly frightened of her. Fear is palpable on the left, as well
it should be.
What your sterling critic here identified as so-called "lies" are false
nit picks, dummy. If this is all you got...well we /know/ it's all you
got.
Straightarrow
The progressive/anarchists may have already popped their collective
wads on the first go-round of their "destroy Palin" antics. I mean
they've attempted to destroy her entire family,hacked her e-
mail,burned her church. What's left? Kill her pet cat and hang the
dead carcass over her front door?? I see the far left lunatics going
to the extreme next. Death threats? Drive-by shootings at her home in
the dark of night?? Kidnap one of her kids ? Kill a member of her
family??
Straightarrow
> "1-20-2013" <01202...@obamas-lastday.com> wrote in message
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
How much more will it take to push the far,far,far leftist lunatics
like over the edge ? Will YOU be the one that pulls the trigger sid??
I mean after all you are in your mid 80s. You've nothing to live for
because your family has deserted you. You haven't received your
promised reperations check from Obama. Perhaps you'll snap and be the
one that choses to pull the trigger on Palin. You'd be a hero to the
rest of the progressive anarchist crazies that populate the dark
fringe of society.
JayPee Vee
> In article <hdlama$ur...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> > Scared of the lies and demonstration of incompetence in her book?
> > She'll make a great candidate in 2012 and 2016!
>
> You're visibly frightened of her. Fear is palpable on the left, as well
> it should be.
Calling her an idiot isn't being afraid of her, moron.
Seriously, why don't you say that you're embarrassed that the
Republican party has been reduced to *that*... At least, you'd be
honest.
Of all the right-wingers who could play a role with the Republicans,
why does it seem that the dumbests are always chosen?
Didn't you learn your lesson with Dumbya?
Neolibertarian
<499b602a-2217-429b...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
JayPee Vee <jaype...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 nov, 12:33, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <hdlama$ur...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >
> > �"Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Scared of the lies and demonstration of incompetence in her book?
> > > She'll make a great candidate in 2012 and 2016!
> >
> > You're visibly frightened of her. Fear is palpable on the left, as well
> > it should be.
>
> Calling her an idiot isn't being afraid of her, moron.
> Seriously, why don't you say that you're embarrassed that the
> Republican party has been reduced to *that*... At least, you'd be
> honest.
If I would, are we to assume this would allow you to duck the
responsibility for who you support?
Heh.
Sarah Palin would not take ten months of deliberation to whittle her
choices in Afghanistan down to four different strategic plans. All
without nearing a decision. Especially she would not do so, had she
campaigned on increasing the US commitment to Afghanistan in the first
place.
Sarah Palin would never promise "no tax increases for 95% of Americans,"
all while publicly, PAINFULLY publicly, planning on raising taxes on
100% of Americans. Besides, /she'd/ never get away with it, would she?
Sarah Palin wouldn't attempt to save Medicare by forcing all Americans
to participate in the program (Medicare, in this instance, is soon to be
called "the public option").
Barack Obama would be an embarrassment to you, were you able to afford
the luxury of being embarrassed.
Katie Couric may have tripped up Palin with a question about the "Bush
Doctrine." Not that there /is/ such a thing as the "Bush Doctrine;"
except in the minds of some anarchist college professors and some
socialist ideologues who write for the New York Times.
Sarah knew she was at that interview in order to get tripped up. She
went anyway and tried her best. She hadn't even been a national
candidate 60 days at that time.
As "embarrassing" as that's supposed to be, how does it compare to an
idiot like Rick Warren tripping up Barack Obama? And, let's face it,
Katie's flagging career depended on her being able to trip up Sarah.
Rick tripped up Obama by asking a question that everyone in the United
States, including Barack Obama, /knew/ he was going to ask.
He wasn't even attempting to trip him up. It was the furthest thing from
his mind.
Sarah Palin would not allow oil prices to rise without attempting to
combat prices by exploiting America's own rich resources.
Have you ever read the environmental impact statements concerning ANWR?
I bet you think that the resistance to opening it to exploration is
because of the fear of oil spills or expected damage from running the
oil rigs.
It's certainly what I thought before I looked into it.
It turns out that oil spills aren't feared or even anticipated. American
oil companies have an exemplary record in this area, and no real
environmental impact is expected from the oil, drilling or transport,
per se.
The environmental impact study is only concerned about mankind moving
into ANWR and living there.
On this basis, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress will allow
gasoline prices to climb above $4 a gallon.
Because some environmentalists don't want mankind to live and work in
what is, essentially, an arctic wasteland.
Sarah Palin isn't anthrophobic. Our President, embarrassingly, is.
> Of all the right-wingers who could play a role with the Republicans,
> why does it seem that the dumbests are always chosen?
> Didn't you learn your lesson with Dumbya?
"Dumbya" scored higher on his SAT's than you did. He earned an MBA from
Yale. He's qualified to fly the F102A Delta Dagger. He was a wildly
successful governor from the second largest state in the Union. His
presidential approvals were significantly higher than even FDR's after
Pearl Harbor. These 90 percentiles were sustained longer than for any
other president in history. As badly as his presidency ended, his
popularity was never as low as Truman's at the end of his own
administration.
He reads.
The lesson we learned is: Perceptions are funny things.
--
Neolibertarian
"Nobody inherits civilisation.
� You inherit the /ruins/ of civilisation.
� Beginning with yourself.
� And you can't even afford its heating bill."
---Dennnis M. Hammes
JayPee Vee
Let's discuss health care when the USA fares better than 37th
worldwide for overall performance.
> Barack Obama would be an embarrassment to you, were you able to afford
> the luxury of being embarrassed.
>
> Katie Couric may have tripped up Palin with a question about the "Bush
> Doctrine." Not that there /is/ such a thing as the "Bush Doctrine;"
> except in the minds of some anarchist college professors and some
> socialist ideologues who write for the New York Times.
>
> Sarah knew she was at that interview in order to get tripped up. She
> went anyway and tried her best. She hadn't even been a national
> candidate 60 days at that time.
Why can't she speak like a normal person? Why couldn't she name ONE
newspaper that she reads?
Admit it: she was an embarassment for the intelligent fringe of the
Republicans.
As long as you'll play the "dumb" card, you'll lose.
>
> As "embarrassing" as that's supposed to be, how does it compare to an
> idiot like Rick Warren tripping up Barack Obama? And, let's face it,
> Katie's flagging career depended on her being able to trip up Sarah.
> Rick tripped up Obama by asking a question that everyone in the United
> States, including Barack Obama, /knew/ he was going to ask.
>
> He wasn't even attempting to trip him up. It was the furthest thing from
> his mind.
>
> Sarah Palin would not allow oil prices to rise without attempting to
> combat prices by exploiting America's own rich resources.
How do you know?
>
> Have you ever read the environmental impact statements concerning ANWR?
>
> I bet you think that the resistance to opening it to exploration is
> because of the fear of oil spills or expected damage from running the
> oil rigs.
>
> It's certainly what I thought before I looked into it.
>
> It turns out that oil spills aren't feared or even anticipated. American
> oil companies have an exemplary record in this area, and no real
> environmental impact is expected from the oil, drilling or transport,
> per se.
>
> The environmental impact study is only concerned about mankind moving
> into ANWR and living there.
>
> On this basis, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress will allow
> gasoline prices to climb above $4 a gallon.
>
> Because some environmentalists don't want mankind to live and work in
> what is, essentially, an arctic wasteland.
>
> Sarah Palin isn't anthrophobic. Our President, embarrassingly, is.
>
> > Of all the right-wingers who could play a role with the Republicans,
> > why does it seem that the dumbests are always chosen?
> > Didn't you learn your lesson with Dumbya?
>
> "Dumbya" scored higher on his SAT's than you did.
1- how do you know?
2- am I president of the USA?
He earned an MBA from
> Yale.
Sure.
He's qualified to fly the F102A Delta Dagger. He was a wildly
> successful governor from the second largest state in the Union. His
> presidential approvals were significantly higher than even FDR's after
> Pearl Harbor.
So what? Britney Spears sells more cd than Mozart, is Britney Spears
therefore a greater musician?
Somehow, what you just wrote says more about the USA than George Bush.
And it isn't a compliment...
These 90 percentiles were sustained longer than for any
> other president in history. As badly as his presidency ended, his
> popularity was never as low as Truman's at the end of his own
> administration.
>
> He reads.
>
> The lesson we learned is: Perceptions are funny things.
You betcha.
miles
> Let's discuss health care when the USA fares better than 37th
> worldwide for overall performance.
It's faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems be they
cultural, behavioral, economic, dietary habits etc. that aren't
controlled by health care.
The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So
WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and
other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality.
The WHO made unproven claims relating such data to health care.
The larger issue is that WHO based their claims on a 10 year old report
that relied on even older statistics.
Buerste
"Sid9" <si...@belsouth.net> wrote in message
news:hdl9uo$q6h$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
<snip> .
> Republican liars are just fine with you!
Obammy's 100 lies in 100 days:
http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2009/04/first-100-days-list-of-100-of-obamas.html
Democrat liars are just fine with you! (and, you're so much better at it)
Neolibertarian
<b8d97c87-ea4f-4d37...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
JayPee Vee <jaype...@gmail.com> wrote:
Who says the US health care "performance" is ranked 37th?
Oh yeah, that's right: WHO. WHO says so.
That ranking is a farce, of course. The United States has the best
health care system in the world, bar none.
The reason the US falls to "37th in the world" on the WHO list is for
reasons which have nothing to do with our health care system. The WHO
also knocks us down several slots because of our predominately private
health insurance.
Morocco ranks higher than the US in that "study."
Do you seriously think Morocco has a better health care system than the
United States?
>
> > Barack Obama would be an embarrassment to you, were you able to afford
> > the luxury of being embarrassed.
> >
> > Katie Couric may have tripped up Palin with a question about the "Bush
> > Doctrine." Not that there /is/ such a thing as the "Bush Doctrine;"
> > except in the minds of some anarchist college professors and some
> > socialist ideologues who write for the New York Times.
> >
> > Sarah knew she was at that interview in order to get tripped up. She
> > went anyway and tried her best. She hadn't even been a national
> > candidate 60 days at that time.
>
> Why can't she speak like a normal person?
There's no such thing as normal speech or a normal person, dummy.
Her dialect matches Minnesota or the Dakotas or Alaska dialects. Palin's
is much less thick than people I personally know from those states.
> Why couldn't she name ONE
> newspaper that she reads?
Because she knew she was in the crosshairs, dummy.
She was two months into a national campaign that had been raging longer
than any previous campaign in US history.
She prolly was still reading the Anchorage Daily News or the
Juneau�Capital City Weekly.
Would you have roasted her for that? Of course you would.
> Admit it: she was an embarassment for the intelligent fringe of the
> Republicans.
You underestimate her at your own peril.
> As long as you'll play the "dumb" card, you'll lose.
>
I don't play the "dumb card," goofy.
> >
> > As "embarrassing" as that's supposed to be, how does it compare to an
> > idiot like Rick Warren tripping up Barack Obama? And, let's face it,
> > Katie's flagging career depended on her being able to trip up Sarah.
> > Rick tripped up Obama by asking a question that everyone in the United
> > States, including Barack Obama, /knew/ he was going to ask.
> >
> > He wasn't even attempting to trip him up. It was the furthest thing from
> > his mind.
> >
> > Sarah Palin would not allow oil prices to rise without attempting to
> > combat prices by exploiting America's own rich resources.
>
> How do you know?
>
Because she's tied any future candidacy with a mandate to open America's
resources.
> > Have you ever read the environmental impact statements concerning ANWR?
> >
> > I bet you think that the resistance to opening it to exploration is
> > because of the fear of oil spills or expected damage from running the
> > oil rigs.
> >
> > It's certainly what I thought before I looked into it.
> >
> > It turns out that oil spills aren't feared or even anticipated. American
> > oil companies have an exemplary record in this area, and no real
> > environmental impact is expected from the oil, drilling or transport,
> > per se.
> >
> > The environmental impact study is only concerned about mankind moving
> > into ANWR and living there.
> >
> > On this basis, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress will allow
> > gasoline prices to climb above $4 a gallon.
> >
> > Because some environmentalists don't want mankind to live and work in
> > what is, essentially, an arctic wasteland.
> >
> > Sarah Palin isn't anthrophobic. Our President, embarrassingly, is.
> >
> > > Of all the right-wingers who could play a role with the Republicans,
> > > why does it seem that the dumbests are always chosen?
> > > Didn't you learn your lesson with Dumbya?
> >
> > "Dumbya" scored higher on his SAT's than you did.
>
> 1- how do you know?
Because he was upper 20 percentile, IIRC. It's a likely statement no
matter whom I'm addressing. When addressing a liberal, confidence rises
sharply.
> 2- am I president of the USA?
Not in this universe.
>
> He earned an MBA from
> > Yale.
>
> Sure.
>
> He's qualified to fly the F102A Delta Dagger. He was a wildly
> > successful governor from the second largest state in the Union. His
> > presidential approvals were significantly higher than even FDR's after
> > Pearl Harbor.
>
> So what? Britney Spears sells more cd than Mozart, is Britney Spears
> therefore a greater musician?
Depends on who you ask. Britney, even fat, smoking and falling down
drunk is probably cuter than Mozart--considering he died 200 years
before she first appeared on the Mickey Mouse Club.
Greater musician? Britney doesn't compose her own music, she's just a
performer and dancer. The comparison breaks down.
However, politicians put a great store in "popularity." Go figure.
> Somehow, what you just wrote says more about the USA than George Bush.
> And it isn't a compliment...
Bush hit 90 percentile approvals for very good reasons. We're not
responsible for your perceptions of what he did. What he did was the
right thing, at least in regards to the War on Terror.
Neolibertarian
smo...@board.com wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:59:58 -0600, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Who says the US health care "performance" is ranked 37th?
>
> Most of the civilized western world health
> organizations
There's only one "organization" concerned with other countries'
healthcare systems, you silly snigget.
That would be who?
That's right: WHO.
Third base.
We won't get fooled again...
>
> But---
>
> No one suggests our technology and the ability to do
> major operations is lacking
>
> The issue is the health of the entire society and HOW
> it's dealt with
In this particular regard, the United States exceeds all other nations.
In every way, the US heath care system exceeds all other systems in the
world.
Bar none.
>
> We have the ability to give those with money anything
> they want
Define "we."
I'm not sure you have the ability to give anyone, anything.
>
> We do not have the ability to keep the vast majority of
> the nation healthy, offer affordable primary care--and
> leave millions at risk
The "vast majority" of Americans have health insurance. And 80% of them
are satisfied with their coverage.
Every year the number of Americans WITH health insurance rises.
Steadily.
There's no crisis. There never, ever, ever was 46.7 million without
health insurance in the US. That cynically used figure includes illegal
aliens and tens of millions of Americans who make more than
$80,000/year. They can afford to buy insurance, but chose not to.
Even if you don't have health insurance, you will get treated here. No
hospital in the US can turn you down because of your inability to pay.
This was federal law passed back in the 1980's. Catholic and other
church chartered hospitals have programs for setting up reasonable
payment plans, or in the case of the destitute and needy, forgiveness of
debt.
The only "emergency" is that Medicare is bankrupt.
Congress would normally just increase FICA taxes (part of which goes
towards Medicare), or levy a direct income tax hike on us.
Problem solved.
But it turns out that US tax rates are already very high, and
ludicrously progressive. The US actually has the most progressive income
tax rates in the world. And the second highest corporate tax rate.
No politician would survive if he/she were seen supporting a tax
increase.
Since they can't raise taxes, and Medicare is almost at the bankruptcy
point, they have to do SOMETHING.
Otherwise, Americans will notice the collapse of Medicare, and they'll
want to know why the "surpluses" were spent long ago. And no one
bothered to tell them about it.
You see, Americans instinctually don't approve of Bernie Madoff's
business practices...
Jim Alder
september.org:
Is that the Liberal Media's new motto? It fits.
> What dummy researched the stuff she put in her book?
The Associated Press. And a piss poor job they did, too!
> She's a straight out liar!
Not that I can see.
Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-
per-night Essex House luxury hotel ... With air fare, the cost to Alaska was
well over $3,000.
Hmmm. That's $2829.16 for the room, leaving $170.84 for air fare for two
from Alaska to New York City! I'd say Palin's claims of frugality were right
on the money, no pun intended.
----
Boasts that she ran her campaign for governor on small donations, mostly from
first-time givers ... Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary
and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people
and political action committees giving at least $500.
Since they were allowed to give $1000 or $2,000 (PACs) and only gave "at
least $500", I'd say she was again accurate. If they were something other than
small givers, why didn't they give the max? And in a collection of $1.3
million, I would call $500 "small donations."
---
"If you want real job growth, cut capital gains taxes and slay the death tax
once and for all."
The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not
repealed under Reagan
---
She didn't say it was.
Reagan Proposal
* Raises the amount excluded from estate taxes to $600,000 from $175',000
after a 5-year.phase-in.
It's pretty obvious what's going on here. The AP got their advance copies
of Palin's book and handed them out ot anyone who could read and said "Find
something wrong with as many things she says as you can." And apparently truth
was not a requirement.
--
So, how's that whole "hopey - changey"
thing working out for you so far?
JayPee Vee
Yup. Had they put the USA first, you'd be the first bragging about it.
Because you don't like their conclusions, you try to discredit them.
I'm still debating whether I call this being childish or being stupid.
>
> That ranking is a farce, of course. The United States has the best
> health care system in the world, bar none.
Sure, moron. Why so? Because you say so. Got it.
>
> The reason the US falls to "37th in the world" on the WHO list is for
> reasons which have nothing to do with our health care system. The WHO
> also knocks us down several slots because of our predominately private
> health insurance.
>
> Morocco ranks higher than the US in that "study."
>
> Do you seriously think Morocco has a better health care system than the
> United States?
Why not? I'm not a specialist. Why shouldn't I trust them? Oh, that's
right: because you say so.
>
>
>
> > > Barack Obama would be an embarrassment to you, were you able to afford
> > > the luxury of being embarrassed.
>
> > > Katie Couric may have tripped up Palin with a question about the "Bush
> > > Doctrine." Not that there /is/ such a thing as the "Bush Doctrine;"
> > > except in the minds of some anarchist college professors and some
> > > socialist ideologues who write for the New York Times.
>
> > > Sarah knew she was at that interview in order to get tripped up. She
> > > went anyway and tried her best. She hadn't even been a national
> > > candidate 60 days at that time.
>
> > Why can't she speak like a normal person?
>
> There's no such thing as normal speech or a normal person, dummy.
Watch her speeches and tell me if it makes sense, moron.
>
> Her dialect matches Minnesota or the Dakotas or Alaska dialects. Palin's
> is much less thick than people I personally know from those states.
>
> > Why couldn't she name ONE
> > newspaper that she reads?
>
> Because she knew she was in the crosshairs, dummy.
The question is only tricky if you don't read any, moron.
Ask me at any time which newspapers I read, I will give you an
answer.
>
> She was two months into a national campaign that had been raging longer
> than any previous campaign in US history.
And because of that, she couldn't name any newspaper that she reads?
Poor thing. This interview was sure tricky... This Couric is for sure
a very bad person...
>
> She prolly was still reading the Anchorage Daily News or the
> Juneau Capital City Weekly.
>
> Would you have roasted her for that? Of course you would.
Of course, because it shows her lack of intellectual curiosity. Not to
mention her ignorance of world affairs.
>
> > Admit it: she was an embarassment for the intelligent fringe of the
> > Republicans.
>
> You underestimate her at your own peril.
I'm ready to take that risk.
>
> > As long as you'll play the "dumb" card, you'll lose.
>
> I don't play the "dumb card," goofy.
By supporting Palin, yes you do, moron.
>
> > > As "embarrassing" as that's supposed to be, how does it compare to an
> > > idiot like Rick Warren tripping up Barack Obama? And, let's face it,
> > > Katie's flagging career depended on her being able to trip up Sarah.
> > > Rick tripped up Obama by asking a question that everyone in the United
> > > States, including Barack Obama, /knew/ he was going to ask.
>
> > > He wasn't even attempting to trip him up. It was the furthest thing from
> > > his mind.
>
> > > Sarah Palin would not allow oil prices to rise without attempting to
> > > combat prices by exploiting America's own rich resources.
>
> > How do you know?
>
> Because she's tied any future candidacy with a mandate to open America's
> resources.
And of course, you know that she'll stick to her promises once
elected. Why so? Because you say so.
Got it.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Have you ever read the environmental impact statements concerning ANWR?
>
> > > I bet you think that the resistance to opening it to exploration is
> > > because of the fear of oil spills or expected damage from running the
> > > oil rigs.
>
> > > It's certainly what I thought before I looked into it.
>
> > > It turns out that oil spills aren't feared or even anticipated. American
> > > oil companies have an exemplary record in this area, and no real
> > > environmental impact is expected from the oil, drilling or transport,
> > > per se.
>
> > > The environmental impact study is only concerned about mankind moving
> > > into ANWR and living there.
>
> > > On this basis, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress will allow
> > > gasoline prices to climb above $4 a gallon.
>
> > > Because some environmentalists don't want mankind to live and work in
> > > what is, essentially, an arctic wasteland.
>
> > > Sarah Palin isn't anthrophobic. Our President, embarrassingly, is.
>
> > > > Of all the right-wingers who could play a role with the Republicans,
> > > > why does it seem that the dumbests are always chosen?
> > > > Didn't you learn your lesson with Dumbya?
>
> > > "Dumbya" scored higher on his SAT's than you did.
>
> > 1- how do you know?
>
> Because he was upper 20 percentile, IIRC. It's a likely statement no
> matter whom I'm addressing. When addressing a liberal, confidence rises
> sharply.
Your point?
>
> > 2- am I president of the USA?
>
> Not in this universe.
Your point?
>
>
>
> > He earned an MBA from
> > > Yale.
>
> > Sure.
>
> > He's qualified to fly the F102A Delta Dagger. He was a wildly
> > > successful governor from the second largest state in the Union. His
> > > presidential approvals were significantly higher than even FDR's after
> > > Pearl Harbor.
>
> > So what? Britney Spears sells more cd than Mozart, is Britney Spears
> > therefore a greater musician?
>
> Depends on who you ask. Britney, even fat, smoking and falling down
> drunk is probably cuter than Mozart--considering he died 200 years
> before she first appeared on the Mickey Mouse Club.
You know very well what I mean.
> Greater musician? Britney doesn't compose her own music, she's just a
> performer and dancer. The comparison breaks down.
Is her input to the history of music greater than Mozart's?
See, you're playing the dumb card again: you understood perfectly what
I meant, but you had to "play" dumb to pretend to make a point.
>
> However, politicians put a great store in "popularity." Go figure.
Yes. It's called election. Polls are merely popularity contests with
no bearing on elections. It's easy to say that you'll support someone
when you're talking to some unknown person on the telephone. Go
figure.
See, you're playing the dumb card, AGAIN.
>
> > Somehow, what you just wrote says more about the USA than George Bush.
> > And it isn't a compliment...
>
> Bush hit 90 percentile approvals for very good reasons. We're not
> responsible for your perceptions of what he did. What he did was the
> right thing, at least in regards to the War on Terror.
Ah... Rightard Newspeak... "War on Terror"... "You're either with us
or against us"... You're very good at this little game...
Now, tell me: what was the connection between Iraq and 9/11?
You see, your hero played the dumb card: he assumed that the Americans
wouldn't make the difference between Al-Qaeda and Iraq... And in a
way, he was right. Which says a lot about Americans. Had Pearl Harbour
happened under Bush, he probably would have attacked New Zealand...
And you would have supported him. Because you're dumb.
>
> --
> Neolibertarian
Ah, the title ashamed republicans give to themselves. "In reality we
are 100% republicans but we don't want to be associated to what this
party has become..."
So maybe you're not so dumb after all... So why do you play the dumb
card?
Neolibertarian
<43489821-881e-486f...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
JayPee Vee <jaype...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Sarah Palin would not allow oil prices to rise without attempting to
> > > > combat prices by exploiting America's own rich resources.
> >
> > > How do you know?
> >
> > Because she's tied any future candidacy with a mandate to open America's
> > resources.
>
> And of course, you know that she'll stick to her promises once
> elected. Why so? Because you say so.
> Got it.
>
I don't particularly trust politicians to do anything.
However, at least her promise in this regard isn't self-contradictory,
It seems that Barack Obama has patented the self-contradictory campaign
promise. But then, he's only perfected a technique that's shared by many
of his fellow populist-bureaucrats.
[snip]
> >
> > > > "Dumbya" scored higher on his SAT's than you did.
> >
> > > 1- how do you know?
> >
> > Because he was upper 20 percentile, IIRC. It's a likely statement no
> > matter whom I'm addressing. When addressing a liberal, confidence rises
> > sharply.
>
> Your point?
Good Lord, I was answering your stupid rhetorical question.
Let's skip to an interesting part:
> >
> > Bush hit 90 percentile approvals for very good reasons. We're not
> > responsible for your perceptions of what he did. What he did was the
> > right thing, at least in regards to the War on Terror.
>
> Ah... Rightard Newspeak... "War on Terror"... "You're either with us
> or against us"... You're very good at this little game...
> Now, tell me: what was the connection between Iraq and 9/11?
Silly question.
I'll explain why.
In 1996, Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States. Primary
among his reasons was America's championing of the failed UN sanctions
against Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html
That year, Iranian backed jihadis attacked American personnel in Saudi
Arabia at Riyadh and Prince Sultan Airbase (Khobar Towers). These
Americans were there as part of the joint task force helping to enforce
the UN sanctions against Iraq. Bin Laden praised these attacks as
exemplars to the Youth of Islam, showing them the correct way for
throwing off the yolk of the infidel oppressors.
In 1998, bin Laden reissued his war fatwa; this time it was formally
endorsed by jihad leaders from over 20 countries. Again, bin Laden cited
the failed UN Sanctions against Iraq as his primary casus belli (cause
for war). He once again clearly drew parallels between the plight of the
Iraqi people, and the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1998.html
That year the US embassies at Dar es Salaam and Nairobi were attacked
simultaneously with devastating suicide bomber attacks.
In 2000, the USS Cole was attacked off the coast of Yemen. The Cole was
there as part of the task force enforcing the UN sanctions against Iraq.
In October of 2004, at the height of the Iraq war, bin Laden released a
video tape addressed to the American People. In it, he reiterates the
connections between the jihad and Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/bin.laden.transcript/
There's lots more, but even you should begin to see "connection between
Iraq and 9/11."
The failed Iraq sanctions regime was why jihadis all over the world
sought to bring the war to America's shores.
And, indeed, those sanctions against Iraq were shameful to say the least.
You couldn't meaningfully address a lasting peace for the Middle East
without ending them. But, of course, not just ending them, but
decisively addressing the reason they had failed in the first place.
> You see, your hero played the dumb card: he assumed that the Americans
> wouldn't make the difference between Al-Qaeda and Iraq...
You sound like PBS.
This isn't the "War Against al-Qaeda," nor is it the "War Against Osama
bin Laden."
Those are concepts that are great for "News Hour," but they are
completely out of touch with reality.
First of all, there's no such thing as "al-Qaeda" as you envision it.
It's certainly not the name of bin Laden's group (which was destroyed
about 8 years ago).
11 Days after the attacks on New York and Washington, President Bush
clearly told you:
"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated."
http://www.historycentral.com/documents/Bushjoint.html
When the hysterical reporters and "journalists", in search of "the face
of Islamic Terrorism," kept trying to paint so-called "al-Qaeda" as a
James Bondian S.P.E.C.T.E.R., Bush tried to put these fallacies to rest
once and for all in March of 2002:
"QUESTION: Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk or
mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that?"
Bush pointed out that the question was incongruous and showed a basic
lack of understanding for the basic nature of this war. "The idea of
focusing on one person is really -- indicates to me people don't
understand the scope of the mission. Terror's bigger than one person.
And he's just -- he's a person who has now been marginalized. His
network is -- his host government has been destroyed."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/03/13/bush.transcript/
> And in a
> way, he was right. Which says a lot about Americans. Had Pearl Harbour
> happened under Bush, he probably would have attacked New Zealand
Funny you should mention that.
Did you know that after Oahu was attacked, President Roosevelt decided
to commit only 10% of the US military to the Pacific?
Hunh?
Instead, he sent a double army to attack...the French in North Africa!!!
What a dummy.
It turns out that the French hadn't even declared war against us!
Roosevelt was obviously only doing so at the bidding of Grumman, GM and
Boeing.
Though, on second thought, maybe it's not that simple.
For instance, when Santa Ana sacked the Alamo in Texas 1836, we invaded
California. When South Carolina attacked Fort Sumter in 1861, we invaded
Virginia. When Cuba supposedly blew up the Maine in 1898, we invaded the
Philippines. When we intercepted a German communique to Mexico in 1917,
we invaded France. When some Saudi Arabian ex-patriots, led by an
Egyptian ex-patriot, attacked Manhattan, we invaded Afghanistan.
What about this don't you understand?
Taco Bell With Dripping Snot
>She's a loser.
>She's a quitter.
>She's a child neglecter and abuser.
>She's a sex harasser.
>She's a crook, a liar and a thief.
She's also a Creationist cultist.
---
Does belief in astrology cause insanity? http://www.skeptictank.org/edm.htm
"Truth kills Republicans quicker than Iraq, H1N1 or AIDS." -- JC
JSM
Snot) wrote:
Bill Clinton repealed the “Glass-Steagall Act” that would have
prevented the banking melt-down.
Obama Lied
BHO said over and over in hundreds of speeches the first thing he was
going to do was get the US out of Iraq. He said there was “no
military solution in Iraq.” As the election drew nearer he started to
modify his stance and after election he followed the course George
Bush had been planning. He also sent 40,000 more troops to
Afghanistan and that won't be enough.
BHO swore that he would vote to repeal the Patriot act but than he
voted for its re-authorization.
BHO decried Bushes warrentless wiretapping of the American people than
he voted to legalize it.
BHO said that he would filibuster any bill that gave immunity to the
telephone companies, than he voted ‘for’ that bill.
BHO said he would renegotiate NAFTA and GATT and while the echos of
his voice were still fading he sent staff members to Canada to
reassure them that it was just campaign rhetoric. It was a lie.
BHO said he was going to bring transparency to government and a
balanced economy. Balanced? He added more debt to the economy in the
first 90 days than Bush did during his entire administration.
Transparency? His stimulus package was hundreds of pages thick when
he submitted it to congress to vote on and congress had 10 minutes to
look it over. Transparent?
He said any bill sent through congress would have a minimum of 3 days
before action would be required and practically the very first bill,
the stimulus package, was sent to congress with less than 10 minutes
to read hundreds of pages and vote on it. Slimy slamma lied.
Slamma said he would close Guantanamo Bay facility. First he wanted
to bring all the prisoners to the US but now he says now, some
prisoners may need to be held indefinitely.
Obama said he would not raise taxes yet he is planning a tax on every
type of energy, gas, electric, oil and on everything that farts
(except people, so far) which would be a tax on all your meat, dairy
and poultry. He also wants to tax your health premiums.
He wants to make Health care available for everyone (including
illegels) but the Trillion plus price tag is yet another tax. There
is no cost savings in his plan, it is only a plan to subsidize the
health industry. He, like Bush, has never mentioned the 1 and 2000 %
profits being made by the pahrms or anything about the restrictions
imposed by Bush about buying cheaper prescription drugs in Canada.
He said he was going to put limits on bonuses to large corporations
but exempted from that legislation are people like AIG, Fanny Mae &
Freddy Mac.
Slamma passed long overdue credit card regulations but it won’t come
into effect for a year which allows time for banks to raise rates as
much as they want and to lobby for changes before it comes into
effect.
The Capitol Center started by G Bush they call “a monument to
democracy” when it should be called a monument to graft and
corruption. It was finished 3 years late and at double the price
tag. That is what happens to “government” deals especially when their
proximity to the law makers is so close.
The cornerstone of Obama's campaign was he was going to keep lobbyists
and donors out. One day, ONE DAY after ignoration he began filling the
White House with just that. Besides those already stated, here is a
few more Obama swore he would keep out.
William Lyonx - top lobbyist for Raytheon got the #2 position at the
DOD.
Timothy Geithner former president of the Federal bank of NY to
Secretary of Treasurer.
Geithner than stuffed his depart full of fellow lobbyists.
Leon Panetta4 to head CIA.
George Mitchell5 named special envoy for the Middle East, to lead the
middle east envoy.
Tom Daschle7 lobbyists for health care firms to run the department of
Health & Human Services.
Three weeks into Obama’s administration he said he was unhappy (*)
with the bank bailouts which he had pushed as the “cure” for American
economy. So who got anything out of that? The banks got billions I
know and the executives got millions in bonuses.
This is by no means a collection of “all” the lies, only the
beginnings of a list. Somebody needs to keep track of the lying
narcissists illegal pseudo president.
Jim Alder
> Well, at least like Hannity, Beck and limpballs they
> didn't make shit up ALDERLOON
Yes, they did, you dumb cocksucker.
Neolibertarian
smo...@board.com wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 06:39:10 -0600, Neolibertarian
> <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't particularly trust politicians to do anything.
>
> Like what?
>
> Why does "trust" have anything to do with it?
It's the basis for any contract.
Trust is usually supplied in the form of consideration.
There is a contract involved in any election between the voter and the
candidate.
If the voter later forgets about this, he's screwed. If the politician
later forgets about this, he's screwed.
>
> You elect a politician based on the ideological
> underpinnings of the principles that they embrace---to
> the extent they purport to do
The vast majority of politicians don't have an ideology, Goofy.
Those few who do, usually deny that they posses an ideology, and almost
ALWAYS deny they hold the ideology they, in fact, hold.
>
> IOW, not for one fucking minute do I believe the
> rhetoric of the GOP when they claim "we want "you" to
> keep more of your money"----because in FACT the word
> "you" does NOT refer to YOU---it refers to the wealth
> and corporate class who have most of the money in the
> first place
Be that as it may, you can rest assured "you" refers to "you" here:
http://www.elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/UncleHood.jpg
>
> Not for one minute do I believe that "less government"
> means what the rhetoric implies---but that the GOP,
> having been taken over by southern racists in the
> 60's---means they are still fighting being forced to
> integrate and hate the Federal government making them
> comply with federal law
As bad as some individuals in the south may yet be, at least their
racism isn't as insidious and destructive as the mentality which claims:
Brown people just aren't capable of surviving in a free society without
generous supplies of financial assistance and guidance from white
intellectuals and socialists.
Of course, this /is/ the idea behind the "Great Society," HUD, the
Community Reinvestment Act, and even permeates the often stated belief
that the Afghanis and Iraqis just aren't up to the rigors of freedom and
democracy.
"The educated Negro of today is a failure, not because he meets
insuperable difficulties in life, but because he is a Negro. His brain
is not fitted for the higher forms of mental effort; his ideals, no
matter how laboriously he is trained and sheltered, remain those of a
clown."
--H.L. Menken
Sure, "socially conscious" Americans vehemently deny this as their
prejudice. And yet they continue to back the principles behind the Great
Society, HUD, the Community Reinvestment Act; and they continue to claim
that Afghanis and Iraqis aren't up to the rigors of freedom and
democracy.
Racism; pure, unadulterated and condescending racism isn't alive and
well in the Republican party.
It's the socialists on the left who frame their ideas of man and his
history completely within the confines of materialism. From Bentham to
Marx, determinism is paramount to every issue.
> Not for one minute do I believe that the bullshit
> rhetoric about "freedom" of the GOP has anything to do
> with common people---but that it's veiled to mean those
> who have the means and motivation to exploit others
> without limitation.
See what I mean?
This is the exact form of determinism I was discussing above!
Poor people are poor because they are "exploited."
Heh.
>
> "Trusting" them to apply it like they infer it---it
> absolutely nuts
I don't trust Republicans, dummy.
Luckily I don't have to; I have a Constitution.
Which country are you from again?
You see, if you have a Constitution, you don't elect leaders. You elect
servants. Your servants do what they're told to do, or they soon go
looking for work elsewhere.