Russian TV Woman Gives Obama The Bird Live!

[biofilm]

"Tracey12" <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aa995384-7552-449a...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Hilarious! Russian news broadcaster gives Brother O' the bird on live
TV!

Picture:http://drudgereport.com/rb.jpg

Story and movie clip at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8909336/Russian-newsreader-Tatyana-Limanova-makes-insulting-gesture-at-Obama.html

[miranda howe]

On Nov 23, 9:25 am, "biofilm" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Tracey12" <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:aa995384-7552-449a...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>  Hilarious!  Russian news broadcaster gives Brother O' the bird on live
>  TV!
>
>  Picture:http://drudgereport.com/rb.jpg
>
>  Story and movie clip at:

>  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8909336/Russi...

why on earth does this matter except perhaps to backward third
graders?

[Sanity]

On Nov 23, 11:25 am, "biofilm" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "Tracey12" <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:aa995384-7552-449a...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>  Hilarious!  Russian news broadcaster gives Brother O' the bird on live
>  TV!
>
>  Picture:http://drudgereport.com/rb.jpg
>
>  Story and movie clip at:

>  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8909336/Russi...

From the Link: "The channel, which goes out to 120 million people
across Russia, has declined to comment. But sources close to it have
tried to defuse the row by claiming that the newsreader had believed
she was off camera at the time and merely providing a voice-over for a
report. According to the same storyline, the rude gesture was intended
for studio technicians who had been trying to put her off her
stride." Oh really? Why would the techs want to do that on a live
broadcast? <chuckle>

[Sanity]

It serves as a shining example of pecking-order politicians and the
media’s proclivity to behave like backward third graders…

It’s all good Miranda. Peace love and joy! *<|:o)

[bodhi]

On Nov 23, 7:34 pm, miranda howe <pomes...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> why on earth does this matter except perhaps to backward third
> graders?

"Brother O" has been giving the American people the finger these past
three years! Overwhelming the American people have instinctively come
to realize that in a Recession the worst thing the govt can do is
raise taxes - on anyone!!
Yet, time after time Obama and the Democrats in Congress refuse to
listen to common sense and insist on extending this Recession by
"threatening" to raise revenues.

Fiscal responsibility be dammed!!!

[Sanity]

The Repiglickens won't cut spending either Bodhi... Isn't that just
"Super"? There is no difference twixt the Dam-no-craps and the
Repiglickens other than their relative styles of speech [they're both
all talk and no walk].

[bodhi]

Normally I would agree with you, Sanity, but so far the Republicans
have kept to the Norquist Pledge of not raising taxes. Maybe the
Republicans learned their lesson. Hoover didn't ..... LOL!! ......! He
was the only president in U.S. history to raise taxes during a
recession. The Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest
incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate
taxes were raised by almost 15%, and unemployment reached to nearly
25% by the end of his term.

Goodbye Recession , Hello Depression!

Obama = Hoover

If the Democrats want to raise taxes, they should learn from F.D.R. -
get into a pointless war and have the American people foot the
bill !!!!!!

Tax the Rich? It's Been Done, With Depressing Results
10/13/2011
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46839

“Raise my taxes,” is the cry from Warren Buffett, who is playing the
straight man for President Obama. But Buffett’s request poses a
question. What has happened in the past when, for example, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt raised taxes on the rich? Answer: Revenue went
down. The Great Depression persisted. And then FDR taxed almost
everyone else to pay for World War II.

Here is the story. In 1929, we had a top marginal tax rate of 24% on
all income over $100,000. And, according to Historical Statistics of
the United States, the federal government took in almost $1.1 billion
that year from income taxes. In 1935, after FDR successfully enacted
a 79% tax on multimillionaires, the federal revenue from income taxes
had been more than cut in half, down to $527 million. Granted, we
were in a Great Depression in 1935, but that is in part because we
were steadily adding new taxes and raising taxes on income from 1929
to 1935, and those rate hikes helped cause and perpetuate the Great
Depression. Why should entrepreneurs invest and take risks when they
have to turn more than half of what they might make over to the
government?

During World War II, FDR further expanded the federal government. He
did not let that crisis go to waste. On taxes, he eventually raised
marginal tax rates on the rich to 94% on all income over $200,000. In
making the case for huge tax hikes on the rich, Roosevelt’s supporters
argued in Congress that government had the first claim on the wealth
people earned. On March 30, 1943, Rep. Emanuel Celler (D.-N.Y.)
argued, “The government can at any time make income taxes as thumping
big as the necessities of war require. Thus, if any plan does not
raise enough money, taxes can at any time be increased. The
government always has a moral if not actual lien on all our income.”

In other words, according to Celler and others, American citizens do
not have the first claim on the income they earn. Government has that
claim, and the citizens must accept what remaining income the
government chooses to leave them. Many congressmen put up a noble
fight in a losing cause. On May 3, 1943, Rep. John Jennings (R.-
Tenn.) said of the American taxpayer, “Heretofore, we have sheared him
annually—now it is proposed to skin him.” Jennings added, “The time
will come if we continue on down the slippery steep road we are now on
to the precipice that leads to the bottomless pit, the abyss of
financial bankruptcy and ruin. The time will come when we can put a
taxpayer on exhibition and make money charging admission for people to
see him.”

Because FDR could not fund the war with only the wealth of the rich,
he therefore expanded the tax base. Before the war, fewer than 5% of
Americans paid any income tax at all. But before the war was over,
FDR had almost two-thirds of American families paying some income tax—
and the lowest rates, which were only 4% during the 1930s, were raised
to 23% by 1944. Thus, from 1935 to 1945, federal revenue from income
taxes soared from $527 million to more than $19 billion.

After the war, the income tax remained a mass tax—and withholding gave
the government large chunks of revenue collected by employers and
handed over to the government regularly throughout the year. What
started as a simple and popular plan—to tax the rich to pay first for
the New Deal and then World War II—expanded into a reality of near
universal taxation at rates starting at 23%.

[Sanity]

> 10/13/2011http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=46839

> universal taxation at rates starting at 23%.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

When government costs more than a tithe anywhere it is out of control,
and I don’t believe there really are any loopholes; just euphemistic
lies [like Congress calling insider trading “congressional
intelligence” when they do it so it won’t be illegal, yeah right,
sure, uh huh]. I’d prefer a flat tax, but don’t trust anyone high on
the ladder to administer it either…

Basically, the US is run by gangsters. It’s a protection racket,
plain and simple.

[sam]

I'm sure you'll get arguments over the "When government costs more
than a tithe anywhere it is out of control"...are you saying everyone
owes 10% of their income?

[Sanity]

> owes 10% of their income?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No. I'm saying the government has to be fiscally responsible or die.
Hey, I love Hubble photography, but it doesn't keep my house warm. A
million here and a million there and pretty soon you're talking about
real money... Essential services is all that government NEEDS to
concern itself with, and all the rest is pure pork. "NASA discovered
teflon!" Er, like the world couldn't do without teflon? IMO the world
needs solvency and fiscal responability a lot more than it needs
democracy, and the US needs democracy a lot more than it needs to be
run by the oligarchy...

Two cow farts in the wind.

[bodhi]

On Nov 25, 5:48 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Basically, the US is run by gangsters.  It’s a protection racket,
> plain and simple.

Mr Community Organizer is simply your typical lying politician coming
from a long line of "Tax-n-Spend Democrats" of the worst kind.

The Democrats just can't help it.

They're addicted to spending YOUR money and no amount of sanity or
fiscal responsibility is going to convince them not to try and tax-n-
spend their way out of this recession.

They just can't freekin' help themselves!

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than
$250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income
tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of
your taxes."
- Barack "Kingfish" Obama, Dover, N.H., Sept. 12, 2010

LOL!!!

Just like a junkie talking to his parole officer!

Comprehensive List of Obama Tax Hikes
http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-obama-tax-hikes-a6433#ixzz1emKgSU14

Which one of these tax hikes will destroy the most jobs?

Since taking office, President Barack Obama has signed into law twenty-
one new or higher taxes:

1. A 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco: On
February 4, 2009, just sixteen days into his Administration, Obama
signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on
tobacco, a hike of 61 cents per pack. The median income of smokers is
just over $36,000 per year.

2. Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (takes effect in Jan 2014):
Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must
pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults
2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285
2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975
2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants,
prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian
tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS). Bill: PPACA; Page:
317-337

3. Obamacare Employer Mandate Tax (takes effect Jan. 2014): If an
employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee
qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional
non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to
all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually
receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer
for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting
period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per
employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page:
345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65
billion/10 years

4. Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income (Tax hike of $123 billion/
takes effect Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on
investment income earned in households making at least $250,000
($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates
on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*
2011-2012
15%
15%
35%
2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%

*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income
from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in
partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include
municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not
add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business
income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities,
or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not
apply to non-resident aliens.

5. Obamacare Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Tax
hike of $32 bil/takes effect Jan. 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40
percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200
single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450
family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1
percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956

6. Obamacare Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Tax hike of $86.8 bil/takes
effect Jan. 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

7. Obamacare Medicine Cabinet Tax (Tax hike of $5 bil/took effect Jan.
2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA),
flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax
dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines
(except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. Obamacare HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Tax hike of $1.4 bil/took effect
Jan. 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals
from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to
IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

9. Obamacare Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids
Tax” (Tax hike of $13 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs
of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is
one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly
cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are
thousands of families with special needs children in the United
States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.
Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs
children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can
easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be
used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA;
Page: 2,388-2,389

10. Obamacare Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Tax hike of $20 bil/
takes effect Jan. 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000
people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3%
excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page:
1,980-1,986

11. Obamacare "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to
10% of AGI (Tax hike of $15.2 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013): Currently,
those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical
expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of
adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of
10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill:
PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

12. Obamacare Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (Tax hike of $2.7 billion/
took effect July 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using
indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

13. Obamacare elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided
retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Tax
hike of $4.5 bil/takes effect Jan. 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

14. Obamacare Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Tax hike of $0.4 bil/
took effect Jan. 1 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for
Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent
or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill:
PPACA; Page: 2,004

15. Obamacare Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/took effect
immediately): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community
health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and
collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

16. Obamacare Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Tax hike of $22.2 bil/
took effect Jan. 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry
imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page:
1,971-1,980

17. Obamacare Tax on Health Insurers (Tax hike of $60.1 bil/takes
effect Jan. 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to
health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually
until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill:
PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

18. Obamacare $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health
Insurance Executives (Tax hike of $0.6 bil/takes effect Jan 2013).
Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

19. Obamacare Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 ($min/takes
effect Jan. 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual
tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

20. Obamacare “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion/took
effect immediately). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

21. Obamacare Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax
hike of $4.5 billion/took effect immediately). This provision allows
the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal
tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks
“substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill:
Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

[sam]

Yeah yeah yeah...but whacha gonna do? You won't get anything fixed by
bitching here...

And I for one feel our space adventures have been worth every penny
and have paid paid back way more dividends than teflon...

[Sanity]

On Nov 25, 9:42 pm, bodhi <psychedelictour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 5:48 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Basically, the US is run by gangsters.  It’s a protection racket,
> > plain and simple.
>
> Mr Community Organizer is simply your typical lying politician coming
> from a long line of "Tax-n-Spend Democrats" of the worst kind.
>
>  The Democrats just can't help it.
>
> They're addicted to spending YOUR money and no amount of sanity or
> fiscal responsibility is going to convince them not to try and tax-n-
> spend their way out of this recession.
>
> They just can't freekin' help themselves!
>

Republicans are NOT the baby in the bathwater! Over 50% of the budget
goes towards a war Republicans started... Get real. War is a racket
and they are all a bunch of gangsters.

[Sanity]

I find it cathartic.

>
> And I for one feel our space adventures have been worth every penny

> and have paid paid back way more dividends than teflon...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Made you rich or at least heated your home did it? I think the money
would have served a better purpose drilling wells so people could have
safe drinking water or doing maintenance on infrastructure etc. The
questions of whether there is or ever has been life on Mars, or how
many cow farts it takes to equal a hazard to the environment, just
plain ain’t high on my check-list… Communications satellites? Of
course. International Space Station? Uh, how many zero-gravity
experiments are essential to life down here in the gravity well? You
asserted the space program has paid for itself, but without examples
it was an empty assertion. Hey, you are entitled to believe anything
you want for any reason you find proper; but if you want me to believe
it too I’m going to have to have more to go on than your empty
assertions.

It’s the economy stupid! When the problem is over spending, the
solution is to cut spending. When the problem is debt, more borrowing
is not the solution. Get it?

Peace

[bodhi]

>
> Republicans are NOT the baby in the bathwater!  Over 50% of the budget
> goes towards a war Republicans started...  Get real.  War is a racket
> and they are all a bunch of gangsters.

Bush and the Republicans may have started these two wars but it was
the Democrats in Congress (in the majority at the time) that financed
them.

Why do you think Hillary isn't our president, now?

Because her, Pelosi and Reid have as much blood on their hands as do
Rumsfield and Cheney.

[Sanity]

On Nov 26, 1:13 pm, bodhi <psychedelictour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Republicans are NOT the baby in the bathwater!  Over 50% of the budget
> > goes towards a war Republicans started...  Get real.  War is a racket
> > and they are all a bunch of gangsters.
>
> Bush and the Republicans may have started these two wars but it was
> the Democrats in Congress (in the majority at the time) that financed
> them.

Why do you keep distinguishing between the two Parties Bodhi? They
are both prosecuting the wars!

>
> Why do you think Hillary isn't our president, now?
>
> Because her, Pelosi and Reid have as much blood on their hands as do
> Rumsfield and Cheney.

They are all, including Obama, in the same clique/oligarchy... Osama
is dead and was dead years before the Seals stormed into Pakastan and
reportedly killed him, as far as I'm concerned!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zScYmvmANcA&NR=1 I just can't buy into
the corporate media's bullshit anymore.

[bodhi]

On Nov 26, 1:13 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Why do you keep distinguishing between the two Parties Bodhi?  They
> are both prosecuting the wars!

I'm not into partisan politics and absolutely despise those who are.
The folks that protested the war in '04 yet today do nothing to speak
up against the killing of civilians in Pakastan because they are
Democrats have earned my deepest contempt.

burn in hell bitch!

Yet we have the opportunity to turn it all around next year. It means
that the Democrats will have to be morally and intellectually honest
with themselves - something I believe they're not capable of - and to
have the courage of their convictions to do the right thing.

Next year there is only ONE choice if you believe in PEACE, people,
and it's sure as fuck ain't Obama!!

from the Huff Post -

If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)
7/7/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650.html

The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for
George W. Bush the second time around.

I don't endorse the idea that American politics should be dictated by
foreign opinions but a reading of the foreign press over the last six
years reveals that the first election of President Bush Jr. was
largely excused around the world since no one could have known what
this new president was going to do.
Moreover, America arguably didn't vote for him anyway in 2000.

However, the second election President Bush was not excused, because
by 2004, the modus operandi of the Bush administration was clear. He
wanted to 1) conduct wars against countries that did not threaten us
(e.g. Iraq), 2) oversee large financial benefits to companies with
which those in his administration were close (e.g. Halliburton), 3)
establish a legal framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of
private individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act),
and 4) establish a massive federal apparatus to carry out such
intrusions on innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state
(e.g. domestic wiretapping, TSA etc... )

The more-or-less global delight upon Obama's election in 2008 followed
largely from the hope that Americans had realized what a mistake they
had made with Bush's second term and were therefore voting against the
egregious actions of the then Republican establishment.

When most Americans voted for "Hope" and "Change," the above four
objectives were at the top of their list of what they "hoped" would be
"changed."

After two years, however, we now see that Obama 1) conducts wars
against countries that do not threaten us (e.g. Libya, Yemen etc.), 2)
oversees large financial benefits to companies with which those in his
administration were close (e.g. Goldman Sachs), 3) supports the legal
framework for riding roughshod over the liberties of private
individuals who are not suspected of crime (e.g. Patriot Act), and 4)
is growing a massive federal apparatus to carry out such intrusions on
innocent Americans in what is becoming a police state (e.g. domestic
wiretapping, TSA etc.. )

Put another way, when it comes to such things as the killing of
innocent people, taking from the common man to support cronies, and
the elimination of the basic values that make our lives worth living,
we had the hope, but we haven't had the change.

Just as in 2000, Bush hadn't shown his true colors, in 2008, Obama had
not either. A vote for either in those years was fair enough. But in
2012, if you vote for the Democratic nominee for president, you better
have a moral justification that is SO good that it is a) worth killing
innocent people who don't threaten you, b) transferring wealth to the
rich and well connected, and c) the complete suspension of your right
to privacy and such basic rights as protecting your child from being
touched by a government official with the full force of the law behind
him as he just follows his orders.

Do I labor the point? Good.

I don't believe that such a justification exists. I'm having
difficulty seeing how a Democrat who voted for Obama (whom I
supported) for the right reasons in 2008 can in good conscience do so
again given that there is another candidate who has been consistent in
his opposition to all of these things -- not just in words but in
deeds.

If you've read my other pieces, you already know who he is. But if
not, you should also know that Ron Paul has voted to let states make
their own laws on abortion, gay marriage etc. and to let individuals
follow their own social conscience -- even when he disagrees with them
(as I disagree with him on some of these issues). In other words, he
is consistent in his beliefs in civil liberty.

If you are a Democrat, and you sit tight and vote Democrat again
"because you've always been a Democrat" or because you think that some
group with which you identity will benefit more from Democrat programs
than a Republican one, then that is up to you, and I wish you well.
But don't you dare pretend that you are motivated primarily by peace,
civil rights or a government that treats people equally.

That Ron Paul, who has been standing up for these principles quietly
for half a lifetime, happens to be a member of the Republican party is
a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on.
The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his
extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many
think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.

As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a
corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against
anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what
he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and
freedom. It really isn't complicated.

[Sanity]

On Nov 27, 12:07 pm, bodhi <psychedelictour...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 1:13 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Why do you keep distinguishing between the two Parties Bodhi?  They
> > are both prosecuting the wars!
>
> I'm not into partisan politics and absolutely despise those who are.
> The folks that protested the war in '04 yet today do nothing to speak
> up against the killing of civilians in Pakastan because they are
> Democrats have earned my deepest contempt.
>
> burn in hell bitch!
>
> Yet we have the opportunity to turn it all around next year. It means
> that the Democrats will have to be morally and intellectually honest
> with themselves - something I believe they're not capable of - and to
> have the courage of their convictions to do the right thing.
>
> Next year there is only ONE choice if you believe in PEACE, people,
> and it's sure as fuck ain't Obama!!

Yeah sure; your not partisan, you're just down on Democrats.

>
> from the Huff Post -
>
> If You Love Peace, Become a "Blue Republican" (Just for a Year)

> 7/7/11http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robin-koerner/blue-republican_b_886650....

Fuck the Huff Post's opinions.

>
> The world lost its goodwill toward the USA when Americans voted for
> George W. Bush the second time around.

Dubya wasn't elected to office the first time around, by either
popular or electorial vote; he was appointed to office by them Just-us
oligarchs in the Supreme Court who themselves weren't elected... As
to "the second time around": I don't hink there has been an honest
presidential election since JFK beat Nixon.

Ron Paul up and quit the last time around instead of fighting the good
fight, and he took all the money he'd been given to support his
election and used it like it was a discretionary fund. Ron Paul is a
thief! All talk and no walk. Promises and bombast [high sounding
words] are politicians stock and trade...

> happens to be a member of the Republican party is
> a lot less important than the principles that we should be voting on.
> The fact that he is not a party guy should be obvious from his
> extensive differences in policy from his party and the fact that many
> think, given his views, he should not run as a Republican at all.
>
> As Dr. Paul often points out, however, we live in a country with a
> corrupt political party duopoly... and the system is stacked against
> anyone who would run outside the two party system. So he's doing what
> he has to do. And so should we as Americans who love peace and
> freedom. It really isn't complicated.

Yet another all too convienent 'necessity' plea.

PS: DO NOT vote for me! I couldn't handle that much power and might
start shooting people.

[bodhi]

On Nov 27, 2:14 pm, Sanity <sanity-cla...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > Next year there is only ONE choice if you believe in PEACE, people,
> > and it's sure as fuck ain't Obama!!
>
> Yeah sure; your not partisan, you're just down on Democrats.

yep, and during Bush's eight years I was down on Republicans. So
what?

All that proves is I don't toady up with those in power.

> Dubya wasn't elected to office the first time around, by either
> popular or electorial vote; he was appointed to office by them

Good lord, Dubya is chopping wood in Texas right now. You're beginning
to sound like some old crank living in the past. This is 2011, not
2006, fer christ sake.

There are war crimes and civil right violations happening RIGHT NOW
with our current president.

Someone needs to throw a shoe at Obama, not flipping him the bird.

Folks here on AGR need to pull their heads outta their asses and speak
up.

There are no excuses anymore. Those who vote for Obama next year are
compliced in re-electing a war crimnal and are moral cowards not
concerned with peace but only in their own self-interest..

Am I making myself clear??

I do not hesitate