OT..... Who would you vote for?

[Hank]

As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?

Hank

[Thats Me]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>

None of the above, they are all jerks and charlatans.

Happy Camping. ldp...@NOPANTS.juno.com
Remove NOPANTS To reply by direct E-Mail;

2003 Dodge 1500 QC SB Hemi, A/T, Tow Package, 3.92 gears (11 mpg Towing)
2001 Aerolite 21RDB 21ft TT (Scales 2900 dry)

Linux/Unix is user-friendly.
It's just very selective with who its friends are.

[LonVanOstran]

I would vote for ANYBODY running against Obama.

We couldn't do worse.

Lon

[richard]

Neither Obama nor Cain.

[will sill]

"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote

> I would vote for ANYBODY running against Obama.
>
> We couldn't do worse.

You have a lot of company. I would even (ugh!) vote for 0bamacare-lite
Romney if he succeeds in buying the GOP nomination. But my pick this week
is Herman.

Will

[Bob Hatch]

You first, then I'll answer.

--
I respect that you have an opinion. Don't confuse that
respect with really giving a crap what it is.
"Anon"
http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
>Hank

--------------------------------------

#1 Ron Paul

#2 Herman Cain

I also liked Chris Christie before he bowed out.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Janet Wilder]

On 10/13/2011 9:37 AM, Mike Hendrix wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank<nineb...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>
>> Hank
> --------------------------------------
>
> #1 Ron Paul
>
> #2 Herman Cain
>
> I also liked Chris Christie before he bowed out.
>
> mike

ditto

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[Bruce S]

On 10/13/2011 2:24 AM, Hank wrote:

Be more specific - are you asking who we would vote for if the general
election was held today, or are you asking who we would vote for in a
primary election to run against 0bama (or is it an all inclusive
question about both elections)?

If we are talking about the General election, any Conservative or
Libertarian running against 0bama. Hell, if my cat was on the ballot, I
would chose her over 0bama (and even for a cat, she's not very smart,
but still smarter than 0bama).

If we are talking about the Primary election, Rick Santorum and Newt
Gingrich are the best qualified candidates, but don't stand a snowball's
chance in Hell; Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have made statements that
demonstrate that they are not qualified for the position; nobody
outside of New Mexico has heard of Gary Johnson, so his qualifications
are meaningless; Bachmann is sinking faster than the Titanic; and that
leaves us with Cain, Perry and Romney. I like Cain, but he is not
politician enough to get elected. Perry might have a chance, but needs
to improve his performance in the debates or he will watch the general
election as just another voter. With that in mind, I will probably be
left with a meaningless vote for Romney, although if I still lived in
Nevada, and was registered as Republican rather than Libertarian, I
would vote for Santorum.

--
Bruce

[Max]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:38c610ef-8524-420c...@f5g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...

> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
> Hank

He/She hasn't announced yet.

Max

[Hank]

On Oct 13, 1:17 pm, Bruce S <bruce.sn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Be more specific - are you asking who we would vote for if the general
> election was held today, or are you asking who we would vote for in a
> primary election to run against 0bama (or is it an all inclusive
> question about both elections)?
>
> If we are talking about the General election, any Conservative or
> Libertarian running against 0bama.  Hell, if my cat was on the ballot, I
> would chose her over 0bama (and even for a cat, she's not very smart,
> but still smarter than 0bama).
>
> If we are talking about the Primary election, Rick Santorum and Newt
> Gingrich are the best qualified candidates, but don't stand a snowball's
> chance in Hell;  Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have made statements that
> demonstrate that they are not qualified for the position;  nobody
> outside of New Mexico has heard of Gary Johnson, so his qualifications
> are meaningless; Bachmann is sinking faster than the Titanic; and that
> leaves us with Cain, Perry and Romney.  I like Cain, but he is not
> politician enough to get elected.  Perry might have a chance, but needs
> to improve his performance in the debates or he will watch the general
> election as just another voter.  With that in mind, I will probably be
> left with a meaningless vote for Romney, although if I still lived in
> Nevada, and was registered as Republican rather than Libertarian, I
> would vote for Santorum.
>
> --
> Bruce

Fair enough. At least you answered both parts of the general question.

Hank

[Hank]

On Oct 13, 5:01 pm, "Max" <thesameol...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Hank" <ninebal...@aol.com> wrote in message

LOL

Hank

[cj]

On 10/13/2011 8:19 AM, LonVanOstran wrote:
> We couldn't do worse.

yes we could, shrub. he got us into this mess

cj

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"cj" wrote in message news: yes we could, shrub. he got us into this mess

I didn't know Bush ORDERED banks to lend money to people who couldn't
possibly pay it back.
All the time, I thought Clinton did that. (Community Reinvestment Act)
And I thought it was Todd and Frank who said Fannie and Freddie were in good
shape.
I guess that was Bush too, huh ?

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[RonB]

Cain seems to be the only one in the crowd who has a lick of business
sense.

[Dean]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
wrote:

>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....

>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
>Hank

Cain.
--

When you have been in a swamp all your life,
you may have trouble seeing the mainstream!

[LonVanOstran]

Your view of history is distorted.

Lon

[Dean]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:33:39 -0400, richard <mem...@newsguy.com>
wrote:

Hey fool, he didn't ask who you wouldn't vote for!

[Lone Haranguer]

I wish he and Cheney were back in power.
LZ

[Dean]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:37:08 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>
>>Hank
>--------------------------------------
>
>#1 Ron Paul
>
>#2 Herman Cain
>
>I also liked Chris Christie before he bowed out.
>
>mike

Paul is an idealist and believes our enemies would/will play fair. In
that regard, his willingness to eliminate our military is both foolish
and dangerous.

[Bruce S]

You seem to forget that Romney was CEO of Bain and Company, then Bain
Capitol before getting into politics. He was also the CEO of the 2002
Winter Olympics. I'm not really a fan of him (more bland that vanilla
pudding), but he has very good business experience.

And as for Cain, he has a good personality for the campaign (sparks
enthusiasm in other people), but an absolute lack of political
experience could be a handicap. And I really don't like his 9-9-9 plan
- the last thing we need is a federal sales tax on top of the federal
income tax.

--
Bruce

[Max]

"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jer...@nowhere.rr.com> wrote in message
news:j77tk8$q4p$1...@jerryd.eternal-september.org...

You are right Jerry, especially alluding to the fact that the whole damn
mess was started by the Democrats. But having said that you might have
added:

"The authority of the U.S. Treasury to advance funds for the purpose of
stabilizing Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac is limited only by the amount of debt
that the entire federal government is permitted by law to commit to. The
July 30, 2008 law enabling expanded regulatory authority over Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac increased the national debt ceiling from US$ 800 billion, to a
total of US$ 10.7 Trillion in anticipation of the potential need for the
Treasury to have the flexibility to support the federal home loan banks. "

(From a bill that was passed by yours and my congresscritters and signed by
President Bush)

Max

[Jenny6833A]

Obama, with a sigh, if he runs. (Although Obama has his faults, every
one of the Republican wannabees is nuts.) Hillary, with enthusiasm,
if he doesn't.

:-)

Jenny

[Lone Haranguer]

Why aren't you sleeping in the park with your pals?
LZ

[nothermark]

he is the lesser of many weevils. ;-)

[Bob Hatch]

I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that you might be the one who
is nuts while they are closest to sane. (no grin)

[Jenny6833A]

On Oct 13, 9:10 pm, Bob Hatch <bob.ha...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 6:46 PM, Jenny6833A wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 2:24 am, Hank<ninebal...@aol.com>  wrote:
> >> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
> >> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
> >> Hank
>
> > Obama, with a sigh, if he runs.  (Although Obama has his faults, every
> > one of the Republican wannabees is nuts.)  Hillary, with enthusiasm,
> > if he doesn't.
>
> > :-)
>
> > Jenny
>
> I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that you might be the one who
> is nuts while they are closest to sane. (no grin)

You suppose incorrectly. But the facts speak for themselves. However
nutty I may be, that group of crazies is nuttier.

No smile

Jenny

[Bob Hatch]

That group might be classified as banana nut bread light. You are
Holiday Fruit Cake, heavy duty.

[Bob Hatch]

On 10/13/2011 2:24 AM, Hank wrote:
> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
> Hank

Has anyone noticed that Hank has stayed in the background, safe and silent?

[Lone Haranguer]

Jenny6833A wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:10 pm, Bob Hatch<bob.ha...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 6:46 PM, Jenny6833A wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 2:24 am, Hank<ninebal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>>> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>
>>>> Hank
>>
>>> Obama, with a sigh, if he runs. (Although Obama has his faults, every
>>> one of the Republican wannabees is nuts.) Hillary, with enthusiasm,
>>> if he doesn't.
>>
>>> :-)
>>
>>> Jenny
>>
>> I don't suppose it's ever occurred to you that you might be the one who
>> is nuts while they are closest to sane. (no grin)
>
> You suppose incorrectly. But the facts speak for themselves.

What facts?

However
> nutty I may be, that group of crazies is nuttier.

An independent evaluation may prove differently. So far none of them have
been pushing universal nudity and a hostility to "textiles" on Usenet.
LZ
>
> No smile
>
> Jenny

[will sill]

"Bob Hatch" <bob....@ymail.com> wrote

> Has anyone noticed that Hank has stayed in the background, safe and
> silent?

Sorry, I did not notice. Unlike bh, I am not willing to spend my time even
glancing at posts from Hank, Mark, et al.
Whether he is safe, silent or busy marching with his fellow morons, his
thoughts don't interest me any more than the ravings of Jenny & Max.

On the topic: it matters little who we might favor today. What matters is
whether, in 2012, we vote for a Conservative American who genuinely believes
in the Constitution - or (Heaven forbid) a RINO. IMO, a repeat by 0bama is
no longer a possibiity, so it is VERY important that the GOP candidate have
integrity and ability.

Hank's ideas are as irrelevant as an NBC poll.

Will
--
The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.
It is less likely
to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
(Unk)

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:06:15 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:37:08 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>>
>>>Hank
>>--------------------------------------
>>
>>#1 Ron Paul
>>
>>#2 Herman Cain
>>
>>I also liked Chris Christie before he bowed out.
>>
>>mike
>
>Paul is an idealist and believes our enemies would/will play fair. In
>that regard, his willingness to eliminate our military is both foolish
>and dangerous.

-----------------------------------

"Eliminate our military".............. I think you spout BS.

Provide proof or source.

[Lone Haranguer]

He wouldn't "eliminate" the military but under his rule, it wouldn't be much
of a fighting force.

He's an expert on the military ya know, since he spent a couple of years on
active duty as a doctor.

His few good ideas are far outweighed by his kooky ones.
LZ

[K Miller]

Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 10:31 PM, Jenny6833A wrote:
>>
>> You suppose incorrectly. But the facts speak for themselves. However
>> nutty I may be, that group of crazies is nuttier.
>>
>> No smile
>>
>> Jenny
>
> That group might be classified as banana nut bread light. You are
> Holiday Fruit Cake, heavy duty.

Now that's funny.

[Bruce S]

On 10/14/2011 7:28 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 2:24 AM, Hank wrote:
>> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>
>> Hank
>
> Has anyone noticed that Hank has stayed in the background, safe and silent?
>

I think everyone noticed - Hank is trolling.

Four years ago there was a website (University of Wisconsin I think)
that provided questions about the reader's views on many issues. They
would ask a question, then give you quotes from every candidate and let
you choose the one that is closest to your own. When you complete the
survey, they match your choices against the candidates and tell you
which one most closely matched you.

I wish I could find a similar site this year.

--
Bruce

[cj]

how much of the current financial mess is due to two unfunded wars and
tax cuts for the wealthy...how much? and what did the current repugs
running in last years election run on? JOBS JOBS JOBS. and what are they
more concerend with? not jobs but pushing through a socially
conservative agenda that does squat for the unemployed...its clear to
everyone that the repugs number one mission is to tank the economy so
that obama does not get reelected. why is that important? replacing the
old geezers on the supreme court that are sure to retire during the next
administrations term. thats what its all about, not jobs but supreme
court nominees.do you really think boener, or cantor give a shit about
unemployed people? WHERE ARE THE JOBS LON?? TRICKLE DOWN DOESNT WORK!!!
30 years of reganomics is a failure

cj

[cj]

cain bought godfathers pizza from pilsbury...he did not start it

cj

[cj]

cause the cops might beat your ass?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/14/hiv-positive-man-punched-by-cop_n_1011144.html

your pal, cj

[Frank Howell]

Agreed, but don't forget that Romney was architect of the Massachusetts
health care plan. We'll see how good of a politician he is if he can spin
that.
As far as Cain goes I agree, if you examine the 9-9-9 plan how do you get
low income people who don't pay Federal tax now to get onboard. Since both
you and I don't pay sales tax, why would we get on board for a Federal sales
tax, also if the Democrats get a majority in both houses it could be a
9-9-10 or more tax. That said I still see him as the dark horse, but as you
alluded to his lack of political experience it just might be a plus as the
others have a lot of political baggage. Also it would drive democrats nuts
with two blacks vying for president.

Since there is a lot of time until the primaries, who knows where this will
go, but it's possible the even Gary Johnson could have a shot if the rest of
the field self destructs.


--
Frank Howell

[Lone Haranguer]

cj wrote:

WHERE ARE THE JOBS LON??

El Bobo killed them with Obamacare.
LZ

[Bruce S]

On 10/14/2011 3:18 PM, Frank Howell wrote:
> Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 4:55 PM, RonB wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 4:24 am, Hank<ninebal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>>> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>>>
>>>> Hank
>>>
>>> Cain seems to be the only one in the crowd who has a lick of business
>>> sense.
>>
>> You seem to forget that Romney was CEO of Bain and Company, then Bain
>> Capitol before getting into politics. He was also the CEO of the 2002
>> Winter Olympics. I'm not really a fan of him (more bland that vanilla
>> pudding), but he has very good business experience.
>>
>> And as for Cain, he has a good personality for the campaign (sparks
>> enthusiasm in other people), but an absolute lack of political
>> experience could be a handicap. And I really don't like his 9-9-9
>> plan - the last thing we need is a federal sales tax on top of the
>> federal income tax.
>
> Agreed, but don't forget that Romney was architect of the Massachusetts
> health care plan. We'll see how good of a politician he is if he can spin
> that.

So far he has spun Romneycare as a 10th Amendment issue - saying that it
is appropriate for states to try out new programs that would be
completely inappropriate for the feds (he is mostly right). I would be
happier if he said it sounded good at the time, but in hindsight he can
see it was a mistake - and he never says that. I also don't like that
he felt a government mandate was a good thing then - even if he rejects
it now - he has given us no reason to believe that his change of heart
is anything but political posturing. As I said, if he is the Republican
candidate, I will support him, but with the same lack of enthusiasm I
had for McCain last time.

> As far as Cain goes I agree, if you examine the 9-9-9 plan how do you get
> low income people who don't pay Federal tax now to get onboard. Since both
> you and I don't pay sales tax, why would we get on board for a Federal sales
> tax, also if the Democrats get a majority in both houses it could be a
> 9-9-10 or more tax. That said I still see him as the dark horse, but as you
> alluded to his lack of political experience it just might be a plus as the
> others have a lot of political baggage. Also it would drive democrats nuts
> with two blacks vying for president.

This is a perfect instance of Cain's lack of political savvy. No
experienced conservative candidate would support adding a whole new
layer of taxes on top of the existing system. He would have done better
supporting a truly flat tax with no deductions. Make it the same 15% as
the capital gains tax, and promote it with 0bama's words that the very
wealthy should pay the same tax rate as plumbers and school teachers.
BTW, here is a nice web site for designing your own flat tax.

http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/09/design-your-own-flat-income-tax.html

But you are right that a black conservative candidate running against
0bama would drive the left nuts - it would be fun to watch the Democrat
racism in action as they cal him an Oreo.

> Since there is a lot of time until the primaries, who knows where this will
> go, but it's possible the even Gary Johnson could have a shot if the rest of
> the field self destructs.

In my opinion there is no where near enough time till the primaries
start. With the first one coming on Jan 3, that is only 2.5 months
away. I think that before 2016 the Republicans need to change their
rules so that no state can hold a primary before April 1. That would
provide plenty of time to really sort out the candidates and get the
best one.

--
Bruce

[Lone Haranguer]

Did he run it successfully? Has El Bobo EVER run anything but his mouth?
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

cj wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 11:45 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>
>> Why aren't you sleeping in the park with your pals?
>> LZ
>>
> cause the cops might beat your ass?
>

Isn't that exactly what the protesters want? Why disappoint them?
LZ

[LonVanOstran]

You seem unaware that the economy and unemployment has/have grown worse
under Obamanomics, and there is no sign of it getting better unless
Obama leaves office.

Lon

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"cj" wrote in message news:...........The same rant about Bush he has
posted many
times before................how much of the current financial mess is due to

two
unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthy...how much ?

Two facts cj never admits too.
1. Obama spent more in his 1st year as president than Bush did in 8 years of
"unfunded wars" and Obama hasn't done a thing about stopping either war.
2. Bush's economy was doing just fine until 2007, which was (purely
coincidental, I'm sure)
the same year the Democrats took over congress.
Both of these 2 statements are 100% FACT, that can be verified in any number
of ways, yet cj will deny both statements.
That's called being a "mind numbed robot".

--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[LonVanOstran]

But, Jerry. CJ has seen the proof of all this. Why would he accept
reality this time after repeatedly proving that he rejects it?
If he was capable of thinking he would already be doing it.

Lon

[Bob Hatch]

How do you think he got the money to buy it?

[cj]

On 10/15/2011 3:41 AM, Bob Hatch wrote:
> On 10/14/2011 2:48 PM, cj wrote:
>> On 10/13/2011 7:55 PM, RonB wrote:
>>> On Oct 13, 4:24 am, Hank<ninebal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>>> Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>>>
>>>> Hank
>>>
>>> Cain seems to be the only one in the crowd who has a lick of business
>>> sense.
>> cain bought godfathers pizza from pilsbury...he did not start it
>>
>> cj
>
> How do you think he got the money to buy it?
>
>

partners

[cj]

On 10/14/2011 7:58 PM, LonVanOstran wrote:
> its clear to
> everyone that the repugs number one mission is to tank the economy so
> that obama does not get reelected

cj

[nothermark]

INteresting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Cain#Business_career

He's smart. His problem is he is part of the upper strata of business
management that wants all us serfs back in our place.

[LonVanOstran]

If the guy is so smart that he can get people to become his partners to
buy a business as big as Godfather's Pizza, while not using any of his
own money, yet he's considered to be the owner of the company, then I
want that man to run the USA. I like the sound of that.

Lon

[LonVanOstran]

No! I didn't write that. Only an idiot as dumb as CJ could write
something that stupid.

Lon

[will sill]

"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote concerning Herman Cain

> If the guy is so smart that he can get people to become his partners to
> buy a business as big as Godfather's Pizza, while not using any of his own
> money, yet he's considered to be the owner of the company, then I want
> that man to run the USA. I like the sound of that.

So do I --- but I'm inclined to think his 9-9-9 tax proposal will be his
political death. Not just because political opponents see it as a way to
accuse him of being simplistic, but because the people won't like it.

Average Americans will choke on it because they don't believe Congress would
pass it - and if they did it would come out 9-9-19 or something, and would
of course be ON TOP of State, county and city taxes. The half of the
country not paying taxes at all (at least at the Federal level) will choke
on because they want to continue getting a free ride.

Too bad, because he really is an attractive non-politician - certainly
compared to (ugh) Romneycare Inc.

Will

[Frank Howell]

Did Clinton practice Reganomics? Is Obama practicing Regonomics? Obama said
that when the Stimulus was passed unemployment would go down, instead it
went up. Even more important is the fact that Presidents can't really alter
the economy as it's Congress that passes all legislation and what
legislation Congress passes is about politics first and economics second-
both parties.
With regards to the Supreme Court, you're right about that.

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

Did you ever leave? By the way do you have an inferiority complex or
inferiority simplex?

--
Frank Howell

[nothermark]

I understand that when the economy left more money in the hands of the
working folks it was more vibrant and we all were better off. The
"growing pie" theory, if you will. The folks running things now have
tossed that out in their greed. They think they can dump the U.S.
market and make more money expanding into the old third world. The
net result is we all lose here and they may still lose as the other
country's involved have their own ideas. If you are not part of the
top 1% of the economy you are part of the victimized too.

BTW, that's part of why I think most folks supporting the
Conservative's can properly label themselves as suckers.

[Bruce S]

On 10/15/2011 8:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
>
> I understand that when the economy left more money in the hands of the
> working folks it was more vibrant and we all were better off. The
> "growing pie" theory, if you will. The folks running things now have
> tossed that out in their greed. They think they can dump the U.S.
> market and make more money expanding into the old third world. The
> net result is we all lose here and they may still lose as the other
> country's involved have their own ideas. If you are not part of the
> top 1% of the economy you are part of the victimized too.

And right there we have marks statement that he supports and endorses
the Occupy Wall Street bunch. I'm surprised that he's not posting from
his tent in the park - unwashed and stinking the place up.

--
Bruce

[LonVanOstran]

Well, he IS stinking the place up. <g>

Lon

[cj]

On 10/15/2011 11:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
> BTW, that's part of why I think most folks supporting the
> Conservative's can properly label themselves as suckers.

EXACTLY...hit the nail Right on the head(i would have used the term saps)

cj

[cj]

and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

the occupy wall street protests are going global...many many people are
sick and tired of corporate greed. of course your retired so it does not
(corporate greed) have any impact on your life. letting wall street run
amok is a huge problem for a vast majority of the citizens.money is not
free speech, corporations ARE NOT people. GREED is the problem.

cj

[LonVanOstran]

cj wrote:
> and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

No! It's not. If it had happened, I would be denouncing it right here.
If you can show me that it DID happen, I'll do just that.

Lon

[Lone Haranguer]

It's not the conservatives shitting in a city park and regressing back to the
stone age.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

cj wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 12:32 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 8:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand that when the economy left more money in the hands of the
>>> working folks it was more vibrant and we all were better off. The
>>> "growing pie" theory, if you will. The folks running things now have
>>> tossed that out in their greed. They think they can dump the U.S.
>>> market and make more money expanding into the old third world. The
>>> net result is we all lose here and they may still lose as the other
>>> country's involved have their own ideas. If you are not part of the
>>> top 1% of the economy you are part of the victimized too.
>>
>> And right there we have marks statement that he supports and endorses
>> the Occupy Wall Street bunch. I'm surprised that he's not posting from
>> his tent in the park - unwashed and stinking the place up.
>>
> and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

It never happened. If you have proof it did, there is a standing reward for
that proof.

>
> the occupy wall street protests are going global...many many people are sick
> and tired of corporate greed.

Going global? They've had riots in those other countries for decades.

of course your retired so it does not (corporate
> greed) have any impact on your life.

So how is it affecting yours?

letting wall street run amok is a huge
> problem for a vast majority of the citizens.

How about Democrats running amok with writing stupid laws that caused the
housing crisis?

money is not free speech,
> corporations ARE NOT people.

Money buys advertising. El Bobo is collecting a $Billion to finance his 2012
efforts.
How is his $Billion spent on advertising different than corporate donations
spent for the same purpose? Huh Punky?

GREED is the problem.

Tell that to the primitives stinking up a privately owned park. They want
life to be a free lunch. That's true greed.
LZ
>
> cj

[JerryD(upstateNY)]

"cj" wrote in message news:.......

and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

Another typical idiotic statement from cj.
This never happened.
A couple of democrats said it happened but there are many videos
showing the democrats members of congress walking out and no one ever spit
on anyone.
A republican offered $100,000 to anyone who could prove this happened and he
still has his money.
Don't you get tired of posting stuff that can so easily be proven a lie ?
--
JerryD(upstateNY)

[cj]

On 10/15/2011 4:17 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
> regressing back to the stone age

no, a conservative would be a little more modern, regressing to the late
1800's

your pal, cj

[cj]

yell or spit?
cj

[LonVanOstran]

I figured that's how you would respond.

Lon

[cj]

On 10/15/2011 4:28 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
> It never happened. If you have proof it did, there is a standing reward
> for that proof.

prove that it didnt...you cant

They've had riots in those other countries for decades.

riots or movements?

So how is it affecting yours?

higher prices, less choices

How about Democrats running amok with writing stupid laws that caused
the housing crisis?

nothing compared to the repugs unwriting good laws that caused the
finical crisis

How is his $Billion spent on advertising different than corporate
donations spent for the same purpose?

figure it out old man

Huh Punky?

punky??

Tell that to the primitives stinking up a privately owned park

primitives?, you mean those still in the workforce? BTW there is all
kinds of seniors at the rally,s, they just dont get around as well

They want life to be a free lunch

wrong, they want a fair shake

That's true greed.

true greed is making more money for the sake of making more money

do you agree that corporations are people?
do you agree that money is free speech?( are your dollar bills talking
to you?) snicker
are you aware that the demonstrators have the right to assemble?
if they are not old,white and pasty they are primitives..isnt that right
old man?
do you believe that the average working joe is better off with or
without wall street regulations?

people that make money from money should be taxed at the same level as a
janitor

your pal, cj( who knows that you will not answer directly)

[Lone Haranguer]

I'd like to have been born in about 1825. I can see myself trapping beaver
and shooting a buffalo or two.

Since liberal sissies seem to congregate in cities, I wouldn't have been
seeing any west of the big river.
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

What brand of waffle is that?
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

cj wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 4:28 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>> It never happened. If you have proof it did, there is a standing reward
>> for that proof.
> prove that it didnt...you cant

If you could prove it did, you'd have $100,000 more than you do now.
You CLAIM it happened.....based on what? The word of a politician?

Hoo Haw!

>
> They've had riots in those other countries for decades.
>
> riots or movements?

Riots AND bowel movements.

>
> So how is it affecting yours?
> higher prices, less choices

Inflation caused by El Bobo is what causes higher prices. Tell the dumb
bastards to stop printing more money.

>
> How about Democrats running amok with writing stupid laws that caused the
> housing crisis?
>
> nothing compared to the repugs unwriting good laws that caused the finical crisis

Which ones? I can name the ones passed by Democrats. Fannie Mae-Freddie Mac
and 2 CRA laws.

>
> How is his $Billion spent on advertising different than corporate donations
> spent for the same purpose?
>
> figure it out old man

IOW you can't see a difference.
>
> Huh Punky?
>
> punky??

I don't know your name. "Punky" is a semi-affectionate term for a junior
member who is semi-intelligent.

>
> Tell that to the primitives stinking up a privately owned park
>
> primitives?, you mean those still in the workforce?

If they're in the work force, they've been skipping a LOT of work.

BTW there is all kinds of
> seniors at the rally,s, they just dont get around as well

I gave up sleeping on the ground after a solo canoe trip in 1982.

>
> They want life to be a free lunch
> wrong, they want a fair shake

Define your idea of a "fair shake" and tell us why the protesters are the ones
who didn't get one. Both my oldest and second oldest grandsons lost
high-paying jobs and immediately found new ones at better pay. Even if they
hadn't found new jobs they wouldn't be with the protesters, they'd be out
looking for a job at whatever pay was offered.

>
> That's true greed.
>
> true greed is making more money for the sake of making more money

You want a second car? Greed. More than 1 dress for the missus? Greed.
More schooling for your kids? Greed. A lake property? Greed. A new
over/under shotgun? Greed. A fishing trip? Greed. A vacation to Aruba? Greed.

Greed is what makes the economy hum.

>
> do you agree that corporations are people?

People form corporations for business reasons. Corporations have rights.

> do you agree that money is free speech?( are your dollar bills talking to
> you?) snicker

El Bobo is piling up a $Billion to speak for him. His money comes from
corporations too....for favors granted at taxpayer expense.....like Solyndra.

> are you aware that the demonstrators have the right to assemble?

Not on private property they don't. The park is private property and they
have ignored the owner's requests to leave.

> if they are not old,white and pasty they are primitives..isnt that right old man?

I didn't see many people of color in that mob.

> do you believe that the average working joe is better off with or without wall
> street regulations?

Who wrote them? Who got the Wall St. money to write those regulations?
Democrats got more than anyone. Geithner was president of the New York
Federal Reserve when all the shit was being cooked.

>
> people that make money from money should be taxed at the same level as a janitor

What makes you think that people who get interest from CDs don't pay tax on
that money as ordinary income?

>
> your pal, cj( who knows that you will not answer directly)

Go ahead and challenge any of my answers. Please.
LZ
>
>
>
>

[nothermark]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 09:32:31 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What makes you think they are unwashed?

[LonVanOstran]

nothermark wrote:
>> And right there we have marks statement that he supports and endorses
>> >the Occupy Wall Street bunch. I'm surprised that he's not posting from
>> >his tent in the park - unwashed and stinking the place up.
>
> What makes you think they are unwashed?

Maybe it's the fact that the tent has no shower.

Lon

[Old guy]

On 10/15/2011 3:49 PM, cj wrote:
> On 10/15/2011 12:32 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 8:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand that when the economy left more money in the hands of the
>>> working folks it was more vibrant and we all were better off. The
>>> "growing pie" theory, if you will. The folks running things now have
>>> tossed that out in their greed. They think they can dump the U.S.
>>> market and make more money expanding into the old third world. The
>>> net result is we all lose here and they may still lose as the other
>>> country's involved have their own ideas. If you are not part of the
>>> top 1% of the economy you are part of the victimized too.
>>
>> And right there we have marks statement that he supports and endorses
>> the Occupy Wall Street bunch. I'm surprised that he's not posting from
>> his tent in the park - unwashed and stinking the place up.


> and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

So, it was OK for Carol Howard to spit on George Bush, but this bothers
you? (That was proved and Secret Service would have prosecuted, but GWB
shut them off - kind of like the New Black Panthers.)

The case of Teabag People spitting on Emanuel Clever had the local DA so
riled up that he tried to press the case and found that there was no
evidence to support the claim. Examination of the HD video did not
support Clever's charge that he was spit on.

>
> the occupy wall street protests are going global...many many people are
> sick and tired of corporate greed. of course your retired so it does not
> (corporate greed) have any impact on your life. letting wall street run
> amok is a huge problem for a vast majority of the citizens.money is not
> free speech, corporations ARE NOT people. GREED is the problem.
>
> cj

Please don't go there, you don't even know what is going on and why
George Soros wants this country to crash.

Your friend 0bama took 22years of my personal work and GAVE it to the
UAW. All of them had less at risk, worked less and got paid more then I
did during all the years of my now buried career. I at one time
provided gainful and meaningful employment for as many as 65 people and
this regime forced me to close up and sell all the machinery to a
Chinese firm (nobody on this continent would buy it).

And you F**king wonder why I sound like a bitter old man.
Old, I could not avoid, but I am only bitter because the regime has
decided that the results of my work for 50+ years needed to be
"redistributed" to big organized labor so they can send it back to him
as campaign contributions.

Old and Gray and glad it is almost over - Sorry Kids

[Hank]

On Oct 14, 10:28 am, Bob Hatch <bob.ha...@ymail.com> wrote:

> On 10/13/2011 2:24 AM, Hank wrote:
>
> > As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
> > Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>
> > Hank
>

> Has anyone noticed that Hank has stayed in the background, safe and silent?
>

Glad you missed me Bob. It shows you care. :-)

I went camping and ATV'ing. It was my daughters birthday and we all
had a ball.

I asked the questions to get others opinions. I have no answers nor
valid opinions on this subject. Hell, I may ask it again as the
election draws closer. I rarely ask questions if I already know the
answer.

Hank

[Dean]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 10:04:26 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
(dot) us> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:06:15 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 09:37:08 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>>(dot) us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:24:10 -0700 (PDT), Hank <nineb...@aol.com>

>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>As we all know, things will change within the next year, but....
>>>>Giving the facts of today, who would you vote for today and why?
>>>>
>>>>Hank

>>>--------------------------------------
>>>
>>>#1 Ron Paul
>>>
>>>#2 Herman Cain
>>>
>>>I also liked Chris Christie before he bowed out.
>>>
>>>mike
>>
>>Paul is an idealist and believes our enemies would/will play fair. In
>>that regard, his willingness to eliminate our military is both foolish
>>and dangerous.
>-----------------------------------
>
>"Eliminate our military".............. I think you spout BS.
>
>Provide proof or source.
>
>mike

He has stated he would reduce funding by at least IIRC,50 %. Same as
eliminating the military.

There is no way the military can function (effectively) with 50% less
funding.
--

When you have been in a swamp all your life,
you may have trouble seeing the mainstream!

[Lone Haranguer]

"Boeing built 732 KC-135 Stratotankers for the US Air Force between 1957 and
1965. The US Air Force still has about 550 KC-135 Stratotankers in service
(active duty, 253; Air National Guard, 222; Air Force Reserve, 70)"

We're still using these clunkers. My old Navigator from Korean War days
mentioned a friend of his whose grandson flew the same B-52 that grandpa did.

The old ways of fighting wars may be dead but should we be relying on drones
for every air mission? Maybe El Bobo is planning to buy new models from China?
LZ

[Dean]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:49:28 -0400, cj <chan...@charter.net> wrote:

>On 10/15/2011 12:32 PM, Bruce S wrote:
>> On 10/15/2011 8:38 AM, nothermark wrote:
>>>
>>> I understand that when the economy left more money in the hands of the
>>> working folks it was more vibrant and we all were better off. The
>>> "growing pie" theory, if you will. The folks running things now have
>>> tossed that out in their greed. They think they can dump the U.S.
>>> market and make more money expanding into the old third world. The
>>> net result is we all lose here and they may still lose as the other
>>> country's involved have their own ideas. If you are not part of the
>>> top 1% of the economy you are part of the victimized too.
>>
>> And right there we have marks statement that he supports and endorses
>> the Occupy Wall Street bunch. I'm surprised that he's not posting from
>> his tent in the park - unwashed and stinking the place up.
>>
>and its okay for the teabaggers to yell and spit on members of congress?

As you well know, it is impossible to prove a negative. BUT to prove
your contention is impossible and even tho idiots such as yourself
try, there has NEVER been a single shred of evidence to show its
truth. Wanna try? Fool!

>
>the occupy wall street protests are going global...many many people are
>sick and tired of corporate greed. of course your retired so it does not
>(corporate greed) have any impact on your life. letting wall street run
>amok is a huge problem for a vast majority of the citizens.money is not
>free speech, corporations ARE NOT people. GREED is the problem.

Corporate greed is PROFIT. What is acceptable profit in your mind?

Lotsa words, no thought.

>
>cj

[Lone Haranguer]

Dean wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:49:28 -0400, cj<chan...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> the occupy wall street protests are going global...many many people are
>> sick and tired of corporate greed.

"Rome Mayor Gianni Alemanno inspected the damaged neighborhood near St. John
in Lateran Basilica on Sunday. He called the rioters "animals" and told
reporters that repairs to city property, including streets and sidewalks, will
cost at least €1 million ($1.4 million)."
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/rome-rioting-said-to-1202200.html

And that is not counting the damage to private property....which was extensive.

cj's heroes.
LZ

[Dean]

Several of the area businessmen have pointed out that some of the park
rats have come to his place, used the bathroom to "clean up" and then
tore up the fixtures to "teach him a lesson". Nothing of that sort
happened at Tea Party gatherings.

[Dean]

Do you mean the Potomac?

[Dean]

On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:58:37 -0400, "will sill"
<will.e...@epix.net> wrote:

>
>"LonVanOstran" <Lvano...@gmail.com> wrote concerning Herman Cain
>
>> If the guy is so smart that he can get people to become his partners to
>> buy a business as big as Godfather's Pizza, while not using any of his own
>> money, yet he's considered to be the owner of the company, then I want
>> that man to run the USA. I like the sound of that.
>
>So do I --- but I'm inclined to think his 9-9-9 tax proposal will be his
>political death. Not just because political opponents see it as a way to
>accuse him of being simplistic, but because the people won't like it.
>
>Average Americans will choke on it because they don't believe Congress would
>pass it - and if they did it would come out 9-9-19 or something, and would
>of course be ON TOP of State, county and city taxes. The half of the
>country not paying taxes at all (at least at the Federal level) will choke
>on because they want to continue getting a free ride.
>
>Too bad, because he really is an attractive non-politician - certainly
>compared to (ugh) Romneycare Inc.
>
>Will
>

No legislative body can bind any future House. And that's a Fact,
Jack! Witness the rampant changes in tax law every year.

[Janet Wilder]

The military could save more than 50% of their budget by getting the
heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq and every other place that makes little
strategic sense. I, for one, would like to see our military protecting
our own borders here at home instead of being cannon fodder for Taliban
and terrorists.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

---------------------------------


Dean, you may be a reasonably intelligent individual but on matters of
the military you know absolutely nothing.

DOD funding actually needs to be reduced by 50% if not more. Even if
we reduced DOD funding by 50% we would still spend more than any other
country in the world.

Of course some not needed bases would need to be closed...... and
there are a bunch of them.

The navy would need to eliminate a carrier or so and probably a
ballistic submarine.

The point being is that DOD is so bloated now that cutting 50% would
do nothing but eliminate some fat and flab.

mike
--

Pensacola, FL
http://www.travellogs.us/

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

----------------------

Janet, the wars are funded with separate appropriations. The DOD
budget before adding the additional "war" funding is totally
outrageous. As in more than every other country spends on their
Military. Do not let that slip by you....... our DOD
budget.....before the war effort is greater that ALL of the other
military spending by every other country in the world combined.

[Lone Haranguer]

Dean wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:58:11 -0700, Lone Haranguer
> <linu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> cj wrote:
>>> On 10/15/2011 4:17 PM, Lone Haranguer wrote:
>>>> regressing back to the stone age
>>> no, a conservative would be a little more modern, regressing to the late 1800's
>>>
>>> your pal, cj
>>
>> I'd like to have been born in about 1825. I can see myself trapping beaver
>> and shooting a buffalo or two.
>>
>> Since liberal sissies seem to congregate in cities, I wouldn't have been
>> seeing any west of the big river.
>> LZ
>
> Do you mean the Potomac?

Not far enough west to be safe.
LZ
>
>

[Lone Haranguer]

YOU are going to be the one deciding what conflicts make strategic sense?

I, for one, would like to see our military protecting our own borders

You don't even want a fence protecting our borders because someone MAY be
inconvenienced.

> here at home instead of being cannon fodder for Taliban and terrorists.
>

If we don't fight our enemies on their turf, sooner or later we will be
fighting them on ours.
That's what happens when you only plan on defense and wait for an enemy to
attack you before going to war.
LZ

[Janet Wilder]

Could that be because "every other country in the world" doesn't think
it should be sticking its nose in the business of other countries?

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:54:59 -0500, Janet Wilder

-------------

Well, that and because DOD spending fuels our economy. So many
communities depend on DOD spending whether it is actually needed for
the defense of our country or not...... They are good paying jobs.

[Lone Haranguer]

Who does the UN call on when it comes to using a big stick? There is only one
superpower and with that status comes responsibility.

How much of a military would we need to help out Israel if it was attacked by
Iran?

Get back to us with your answer..
LZ

[Lone Haranguer]

And politicians get elected for bringing home the bacon.
LZ

[Max]

"Lone Haranguer" <linu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9g3lfc...@mid.individual.net...

How many nuclear weapons can a squadron of B-2s carry?

Max

[Lone Haranguer]

First you need someone with the balls to use them. Since that essential
ingredient is lacking, it would be another Desert Storm....only with fewer allies.
LZ

[jerryosage]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:22:07 -0700, Lone Haranguer <linu...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>And politicians get elected for bringing home the bacon.
>LZ

Their excuse seems to be - The money is available and it is my job to
make sure that as much as possible goes to my district. And money means
jobs. When someone is worrying about job security and mortgage payments
he or she usually gets tunnel vision and excludes the big picture.

I wonder if the Founding Fathers would have been able to envision where
their vision of our Government has gone.

In times past, in a round about way, the DOD has paid me good money to
help answer some "What If" questions. Was it money well spent? At
their level I'm not sure except I think that the fewer "what ifs" in a
scenario, the better. What I helped discover will never win a war,
although it might help in not losing one.

When the money made it to my pocket Mahoney made sure it was well spent.

Jerry O.

[Dean]

But a 1% cut in education or any other liberal backed program is
devastating?

BS

[nothermark]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:49:26 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:19 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dean, you may be a reasonably intelligent individual but on matters of
>>the military you know absolutely nothing.
>>
>>DOD funding actually needs to be reduced by 50% if not more. Even if
>>we reduced DOD funding by 50% we would still spend more than any other
>>country in the world.
>>
>>Of course some not needed bases would need to be closed...... and
>>there are a bunch of them.
>>
>>The navy would need to eliminate a carrier or so and probably a
>>ballistic submarine.
>>
>>The point being is that DOD is so bloated now that cutting 50% would
>>do nothing but eliminate some fat and flab.
>>
>>mike
>
>But a 1% cut in education or any other liberal backed program is
>devastating?
>
>BS

about as devastating as a military cut on the right. Cut both and
spread the pain.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:49:26 -0700, Dean <roa...@k7no.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:03:19 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs
>(dot) us> wrote:
>
>>
>>Dean, you may be a reasonably intelligent individual but on matters of
>>the military you know absolutely nothing.
>>
>>DOD funding actually needs to be reduced by 50% if not more. Even if
>>we reduced DOD funding by 50% we would still spend more than any other
>>country in the world.
>>
>>Of course some not needed bases would need to be closed...... and
>>there are a bunch of them.
>>
>>The navy would need to eliminate a carrier or so and probably a
>>ballistic submarine.
>>
>>The point being is that DOD is so bloated now that cutting 50% would
>>do nothing but eliminate some fat and flab.
>>
>>mike
>
>But a 1% cut in education or any other liberal backed program is
>devastating?
>
>BS

-----------------------------------------
Dean, try to stay on subject. Your statement was that Ron Paul would
ELIMINATE the Defense Department.

You are obviously full of shit and want to change the subject to
education.


That may work in a courtroom but not on RORT.

[Dean]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:50:59 -0500, Mike Hendrix <mike (at) travellogs

Let me spell it out in simpler terms. Cutting DoD funding by 50%
would effectively end it. And I meant nothing about DoEducation other
to provide an example of your leftist hypocrisy. IOW, a simile. Not
a direct comparison.

Would you reduce each department funds by 50%? Or eliminate 50% of
the departments?

I am in favor of cuts across the board but not in a draconian fashion.

[Mike Hendrix at dot]

-----------------------------

Dean, cutting DOD funding by 50% would be doing nothing more than
cutting fat.

Now as to some of the other Departments. Dept of Education could be
eliminated as could the Dept of Energy and Education.

There are myriad other Departments that should be cut 10% per-year for
about 5-years in a row.