Re: Since Republicans think Pakin debated so well.....
Crash
George Grapman said about:
Since Republicans think Pakin debated so well.....
> ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
Naw. she's yella.
Since RNC convention:
Biden press exposures: 92
Palin press exposures: 04
If people found out what she was really like,
the McBush campaign would sizzle and melt.
"How old is the world, Sarah?"
HAR HAR HAR!!!
The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
Crash
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said about:
Re: Since Republicans think Pakin debated so well.....
> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote in news:SgTFk.2596$D32.2551
> @flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com:
>
> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
>
> Figures. No comment about what she did, just demand that she do something
> else.
>
> --
What she did? She blew kisses, winked at me,
and recited the talking points in a folksy, enjoyable
way. Little more than play the hot librarian card.
What she didn't talk about:
Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
Corporate socialists in free marketeers' clothing?
They are all over the place. But she never mentioned them.
Some of the best known so-called "free-marketeers"
are in their ranks. My, they talk a good game.
One of the richest and oldest scams, as old as
government itself, is:
Private profit, socialized losses.
aka:
Private profit, socialized risks.
and those are just a subset of:
Private profit, socialized costs.
Rich Boy gets rich, but is too slick to be at risk.
We the taxpayer take his risk. Or, we the taxpayers
pay his costs, but he gets the profits. Sometimes
that's illegal. But often not.
Palin never mentioned them because corporate socialists
in free marketeers' clothing are financing her campaign,
and Obama's too. Beats working.
These stealth socialists proudly call themselves "capitalists"
and "entrepreneurs", cuz one American game is, if you take
the risk, you deserve the benifits. ...in fact, in our system,
and in our mytholgy, if you take the risk, you deserve special
treatment such as superhuman corporate status...which further
isolates one from risk: your company may go broke, but you get
to keep your mansions and cars and if yer accountant is slick,
you can keep millions of your ill-gained dollars and your
creditors can go to hell. OJ Simpson comes to mind.
But he's small time. He only gets millionaire's protection.
"If you take the risk, you deserve the benifits," sure, but
problem is, there are not risks for these socialists.
In reality it's tailwagging because they are rich.
But nobody will admit to being a tailwagger...
(America has no bigots, nature haters nor tailwaggers,
just ask us.)
In the housing crisis, at every step of the way from home buyer
to banker to bundler to the huge investors who bought these
bundles, - there was no risk. The home buyer could simply
walk away, and the rest had insurance or "insurance."
Yep. Corporate socialists in free marketeers' clothing
are all over the place. And our mythology honors them.
Rich guys deserve it right? By definition, rich guys are
better than us, right? They risk it all, right?
They have all those related warm-fuzzy and manly slogans.
That's their job.
Wag wag wag.
Jim Alder
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said about:
>
> Re: Since Republicans think Pakin debated so well.....
>
>> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
>>
>> Figures. No comment about what she did, just demand that she do
something
>> else.
>
> What she did?
Yeah, what she did. See the subject line? Grapman can't contest that, so he
ignores it completely and demands something else. Of course, no one is
listening to his demands, except for cheap entertainment.
> She blew kisses, winked at me,
> and recited the talking points in a folksy, enjoyable
> way. Little more than play the hot librarian card.
> What she didn't talk about:
Things she wasn't asked about? I see you are unfamiliar wth the debate
process.
> Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
So taking an arrow from the Grapman quiver, you too want to attack her for
what she didn't do and ignore what she did do. Is this the latest in leftwing
subterfuge?
Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
--
If Barack Obama has a single tragic failing it’s that he is not Tiger Woods.
If Hillary Clinton has a single tragic failing it’s that she is not Sarah
Palin.
Crash
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Sun, 05 Oct, Jim Alder said about:
Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
> (Crash) wrote:
> > in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said
> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think
she's ready to be Prez!? Silly Republican
> >>
> >> Figures. No comment about what she did, just demand that she do
> something
> >> else.
> >
> > What she did?
>
> Yeah, what she did. See the subject line? Grapman can't contest that, so he
> ignores it completely and demands something else. Of course, no one is
> listening to his demands, except for cheap entertainment.
>
> > She blew kisses, winked at me,
> > and recited the talking points in a folksy, enjoyable
> > way. Little more than play the hot librarian card.
Real "Presidential," huh? Silly Sarah the MILF/GILF?
> > What she didn't talk about:
>
> Things she wasn't asked about? I see you are unfamiliar wth the debate
> process.
Silly boy. I see you are unfamiliar wth the actual debate.
Silly Sarah didn't answer the questions and even said she
was ignoring the moderator's questions. So yes, what
*she* chose to talk about (herself) and not talk about,
(the issues,) matters.
Fact is, she tanked. Bombed. Proof? McCain polls are STILL tanking.
Guess what? America aint that STOOPID. Are you?
(For a brillient take on Sarah's sillyness, look up
last night's SNL Tina Fey skit on the debate.)
>
> > Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
>
> So taking an arrow from the Grapman quiver, you too want to attack her for
> what she didn't do and ignore what she did do. Is this the latest in leftwing
> subterfuge?
Laff! I didn't fall for Sarah's Silliness, and folksy me-talk,
and her avoidance of the questions and issues, and *I* am
the one engaged in subterfuge and cowardice!? Laff.
It doen't take much to distract you Republicans, does it?
>
> Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
Silly Republican.
In fact the term "class envy" is a political diversion
designed to diss one on the MAIN TOPICS in any understanding
of even Econ 101. It mis-labels one the MOST POWERFULL FORCES
in our economy. In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
less pay, while employees want more pay for less work. "Envy"
has nothing to do with it. You guys are so easily fooled into
tailwagging for your masters! ...like working longer for less
is all you deserve out of Life. That's pathetic.
Jerry Kraus
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said about:
> Re: Since Republicans think Pakin debated so well.....
>
Give Sarah Palin her due. She's a very amusing whore.
Fred
>
> Give Sarah Palin her due. She's a very amusing whore.
>
YOU'RE A mUSLIM POWER, BLACK MALE DOMINANCE oBAMAMA PROGRAMMED MISOGYNIST.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder said about:
> Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
>
>> (Crash) wrote:
>> > Jim Alder said
>> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
>
> Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think
> she's ready to be Prez!? Silly Republican
I think she's ready to be VICE president. You think Barry is ready to be
President? Leftwing nitwit.
>> >> Figures. No comment about what she did, just demand that she do
>> >> something else.
>> >
>> > What she did?
>>
>> Yeah, what she did. See the subject line? Grapman can't contest that, so
he
>> ignores it completely and demands something else. Of course, no one is
>> listening to his demands, except for cheap entertainment.
More silence.
>> > She blew kisses, winked at me, and recited the talking points in a
folksy,
>> > enjoyable way. Little more than play the hot librarian card.
>
> Real "Presidential," huh? Silly Sarah the MILF/GILF?
I've seen what you think is 'presidential'. Willie the AWFA?
>> > What she didn't talk about:
>>
>> Things she wasn't asked about? I see you are unfamiliar wth the debate
>> process.
>
> Silly boy. I see you are unfamiliar wth the actual debate.
Dipshit Leftist, I watched it.
> Silly Sarah didn't answer the questions and even said she
> was ignoring the moderator's questions.
No, she said she may not answer them the way the moderator wanted. Both
candidates dodged an issue or two.
> So yes, what
> *she* chose to talk about (herself) and not talk about,
> (the issues,) matters.
>
> Fact is, she tanked. Bombed. Proof? McCain polls are STILL tanking.
Yeah, the Obama lying campaign is working. Sad.
> Guess what? America aint that STOOPID. Are you?
Stupid enough to believe a few polls? No.
> (For a brillient take on Sarah's sillyness, look up
> last night's SNL Tina Fey skit on the debate.)
Great. You get your political savvy from standup comedy?
Guess what? It shows.
>> > Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
>>
>> So taking an arrow from the Grapman quiver, you too want to attack her
for
>> what she didn't do and ignore what she did do. Is this the latest in
leftwing
>> subterfuge?
>
> Laff! I didn't fall for Sarah's Silliness, and folksy me-talk,
No, you fall for glib speechmakers no matter how little they really know.
> and her avoidance of the questions and issues, and *I* am
> the one engaged in subterfuge and cowardice!? Laff.
>
> It doen't take much to distract you Republicans, does it?
You wish.
>> Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
>
> Silly Republican.
> In fact the term "class envy" is a political diversion
> designed to diss one on the MAIN TOPICS in any understanding
> of even Econ 101. It mis-labels one the MOST POWERFULL FORCES
> in our economy. In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
> less pay, while employees want more pay for less work. "Envy"
> has nothing to do with it.
That has nothing to do with my use of the term. Class envy is what Obama
uses to get simpletons like you to believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair
share' even though they - a minority - are paying the vast majority of the
taxes paid.
> You guys are so easily fooled into
> tailwagging for your masters! ...like working longer for less
> is all you deserve out of Life. That's pathetic.
You continue to be an idiot.
Jim Alder
10ba8c...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com:
> Give Sarah Palin her due. She's a very amusing whore.
You're a hatefilled little fuckface, ain't ya? You betcha!
Crash
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said
> > Jim Alder said about:
> > Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
> >> (Crash) wrote:
> >> > Jim Alder said
> >> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
> >
> > Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think
> > she's ready to be Prez!? Silly Republican
> I think she's ready to be VICE president.
So is any folksy dogcatcher. But being VICE president ain't
what being VICE president is REALLY about is it???
It's about potentially being Prez. Thanks for your
support.
> You think Barry is ready to be
> President? Leftwing nitwit.
His team is clearly better than their team, and seemingly
clear-thinking Independent America agrees.
OH! That's just part of your Great Evil Liberal Conspiracy,
...right? My how you guys can twist reality!
> >> > What she did?
> >>
> >> Yeah, what she did.
> More silence.
Nope, not silence. What she did is:
> >> > She blew kisses, winked at me, and recited the talking
> points in a folksy, enjoyable way.
> >> > Little more than play the hot librarian card.
> >
> > Real "Presidential," huh? Silly Sarah the MILF/GILF?
>
> I've seen what you think is 'presidential'. Willie the AWFA?
Huh?
>
> >> > What she didn't talk about:
> >>
> >> Things she wasn't asked about? I see you are unfamiliar wth the debate
> >> process.
> >
> > Silly boy. I see you are unfamiliar wth the actual debate.
>
> Dipshit Leftist, I watched it.
>
> > Silly Sarah didn't answer the questions and even said she
> > was ignoring the moderator's questions.
>
> No, she said she may not answer them the way the moderator wanted. Both
> candidates dodged an issue or two.
So whatta ya whining about?
> > So yes, what
> > *she* chose to talk about (herself) and not talk about,
> > (the issues,) matters.
> >
> > Fact is, she tanked. Bombed. Proof? McCain polls are STILL tanking.
>
> Yeah, the Obama lying campaign is working. Sad.
Laff! That's just part of your Great Evil Liberal
Conspiracy, again ...right? My how you guys can twist reality!
Any feelsgoodism in a storm I guess.
Have you ever considered that Repubs are being proven wrong
so often, the Culture of Corruption, etc is NOT a coincedence?
...that Repubs have a basic philosophic flaw?
Could it be Jesus was right? Could it be reverse-Robin Hood
is just plain wrong? ...just plain Evil?
> > Guess what? America aint that STOOPID. Are you?
> >> > Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
............snips
In fact the term "class envy" is just a propaganda ploy
used by the Rich Boys and their many bootlicks.
Don't fall for it Jim:
> >> Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
> >
> > Silly Republican.
> > In fact the term "class envy" is a political diversion
> > designed to diss one on the MAIN TOPICS in any understanding
> > of even Econ 101. It mis-labels one the MOST POWERFULL FORCES
> > in our economy. In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
> > less pay, while employees want more pay for less work. "Envy"
> > has nothing to do with it.
>
> That has nothing to do with my use of the term.
Balderdash! You and your kind call ANY self-interest
of the middle classes: "class envy," AND ANY self-interest
of the richer classes: "American Capitalism" and other
such warm-fuzzy terms. ...See below:
> Class envy is what Obama uses to get simpletons like you
> to believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair
> share' even though they - a minority - are paying the
> vast majority of the taxes paid.
From your reply, it seems we are BOTH interested
in fairness. Good. Perhaps we can find common ground:
> ...believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair
> share' even though they - a minority - are paying the
> vast majority of the taxes paid.
Yes, but often the middle classes are paying a higher
tax *RATE*. ...they often bear a similar or higher
*tax bite* as Warren Buffet is STILL explaining to
America. But this includes the FULL TAXATION BURDEN
of our COMBINED TAX *SYSTEM* of regressive and progressive
taxes, NOT just the progressive federal tax bite
your rich thought-masters want you to look at in a vacuum
and out of context with actual reality.
Warren Buffet only talks about *total* income tax rate,
progressive and regressive. But if we are talking
*fairness,* perhaps a few other considerations might
be germane. It does not seem unfair to me to consider
the tax bite on disposible income, - what's left after the
costs of mere wholesome survival are paid, such as rent,
health, education, fuel, insurance, and groceries.
So Jim, do you think it's fair for a middle class working
family to have to reduce any of the above nessisities
in order to pay his taxes, while the millionaire, any
lazy coupon-clipper or Paris Hilton type has $900,000
untaxed income left over for playthings?
One more thing Jim, regarding fairness. The average
working guy, say a capenter or computer programmer
can earn as good a living in any "socialist" nation
in Europe. Can a millionaire? Not likely. Why?
Cuz Rich Boy uses more federal services than Poor Boy.
This includes most wars, interstate freeways to transport
his goods to market, favorable treaties and domestic
trade laws, tax breaks, open ears in his Congressmen,
the list is endless.
(Sure, Poor Boy (us) use the interstate freeways, and
oil wars, and so on, to visit Grandma on Christmas,
but Rich Boy *NEEDS* those services to thrive.)
I'm not saying that expenses to support our Capitalistic
economy are bad. What I'm saying is, it's *fair* for
those who benefit most (who use it most) pay the most
for those services. Fair is fair, Jim.
> > You guys are so easily fooled into
> > tailwagging for your masters! ...like working longer for less
> > is all you deserve out of Life. That's pathetic.
>
> You continue to be an idiot.
Open yer ears Jim.
Look around at the way things really work.
Jim Alder
> in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said
>> (Crash) wrote :
>> > Jim Alder said about:
>> > Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
>> >> (Crash) wrote:
>> >> > Jim Alder said
>> >> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> >> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
>> >
>> > Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think she's ready to be
>> > Prez!? Silly Republican
>
>> I think she's ready to be VICE president.
>
> So is any folksy dogcatcher.
Oh please. If you really believe that then YOU are not suited for
dogcatcher.
> But being VICE president ain't what being VICE
> president is REALLY about is it???
Yes, it is. But that approach doesn't do the hatemongers any good, so the
focus has to go elsewhere. Let's pretend McCain is on death's door!
> It's about potentially being Prez. Thanks for your
> support.
>
>> You think Barry is ready to be
>> President? Leftwing nitwit.
>
> His team is clearly better than their team, and seemingly
> clear-thinking Independent America agrees.
Clear-rhinking Independent Americans? LOL! If you and they really believed
that was a clear majority, they wouldn't be constantly lying about the
opposition. But I see you aren't quite that big a liar. You couldn't bring
yourself to say Barry is ready to be president. But his 'team' is. Is that
what you call 'handlers' when they're 'handling' your candidate?
> OH! That's just part of your Great Evil Liberal Conspiracy,
> ...right? My how you guys can twist reality!
No, I don't think it's all that great.
>> >> > What she did?
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, what she did.
>> More silence.
>
> Nope, not silence.
Sure was.
> What she did is:
>
>> >> > She blew kisses, winked at me, and recited the talking points in
>> >> > a folksy, enjoyable way. Little more than play the hot librarian
>> >> > card.
>> >
>> > Real "Presidential," huh? Silly Sarah the MILF/GILF?
>>
>> I've seen what you think is 'presidential'. Willie the AWFA?
>
> Huh?
"Always Willing to Fuck Anyone."
>> >> > What she didn't talk about:
>> >>
>> >> Things she wasn't asked about? I see you are unfamiliar wth the
debate
>> >> process.
>> >
>> > Silly boy. I see you are unfamiliar wth the actual debate.
>>
>> Dipshit Leftist, I watched it.
>>
>> > Silly Sarah didn't answer the questions and even said she was ignoring
the
>> > moderator's questions.
>>
>> No, she said she may not answer them the way the moderator wanted. Both
>> candidates dodged an issue or two.
>
> So whatta ya whining about?
Your partisan bullshit.
>> > So yes, what
>> > *she* chose to talk about (herself) and not talk about, (the issues,)
>> > matters.
>> >
>> > Fact is, she tanked. Bombed. Proof? McCain polls are STILL tanking.
>>
>> Yeah, the Obama lying campaign is working. Sad.
>
> Laff! That's just part of your Great Evil Liberal
> Conspiracy, again ...right? My how you guys can twist reality!
> Any feelsgoodism in a storm I guess.
I don't feel good about our likely next president lying his way into
office.
> Have you ever considered that Repubs are being proven wrong
> so often, the Culture of Corruption, etc is NOT a coincedence?
They aren't being proven anything. Repeating lies over and over isn't
proof, it's just an easy way to instill doubt in the average voter.
Unfortunately.
> ...that Repubs have a basic philosophic flaw?
> Could it be Jesus was right? Could it be reverse-Robin Hood
> is just plain wrong? ...just plain Evil?
I could ask you similar questions, but you'd just dance off on a tangent.
Again.
>> > Guess what? America aint that STOOPID. Are you?
>
>> >> > Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
>
> ............snips
>
>
> In fact the term "class envy" is just a propaganda ploy
> used by the Rich Boys and their many bootlicks.
> Don't fall for it Jim:
Sorry. I see it every day in those voting for the Dems. And I see the Dems
encouraging it even more.
>> >> Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
>> >
>> > Silly Republican.
>> > In fact the term "class envy" is a political diversion
>> > designed to diss one on the MAIN TOPICS in any understanding
>> > of even Econ 101. It mis-labels one the MOST POWERFULL FORCES
>> > in our economy. In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
>> > less pay, while employees want more pay for less work. "Envy" has
>> > nothing to do with it.
>>
>> That has nothing to do with my use of the term.
>
> Balderdash!
Hey! Watch your language! There are people living in the 21st century
here!
> You and your kind call ANY self-interest
> of the middle classes: "class envy," AND ANY self-interest
> of the richer classes: "American Capitalism" and other
> such warm-fuzzy terms. ...See below:
No, I call attempts to make it look like those who pay 96% of the income
taxes collected really aren't paying 'their fair share' class envy. I call
encouraging wealth distribution by badmouthing the wealthy to be class envy.
>> Class envy is what Obama uses to get simpletons like you
>> to believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair
>> share' even though they - a minority - are paying the vast majority
>> of the taxes paid.
>
> From your reply, it seems we are BOTH interested
> in fairness. Good. Perhaps we can find common ground:
We're not making a very good start.
>> ...believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair share' even though
>> they - a minority - are paying the vast majority of the taxes paid.
>
> Yes, but often the middle classes are paying a higher
> tax *RATE*. ...they often bear a similar or higher
> *tax bite* as Warren Buffet is STILL explaining to
> America. But this includes the FULL TAXATION BURDEN
> of our COMBINED TAX *SYSTEM* of regressive and progressive
> taxes, NOT just the progressive federal tax bite
> your rich thought-masters want you to look at in a vacuum
> and out of context with actual reality.
If you really want to find 'common ground', you should probably stop
referring to my 'thought masters', silly Republicans and "bootlicks." Just a
little tip from me to you.
> Warren Buffet only talks about *total* income tax rate,
> progressive and regressive. But if we are talking
> *fairness,* perhaps a few other considerations might
> be germane. It does not seem unfair to me to consider
> the tax bite on disposible income, - what's left after the
> costs of mere wholesome survival are paid, such as rent,
> health, education, fuel, insurance, and groceries.
>
> So Jim, do you think it's fair for a middle class working
> family to have to reduce any of the above nessisities
> in order to pay his taxes, while the millionaire, any
> lazy coupon-clipper or Paris Hilton type has $900,000
> untaxed income left over for playthings?
Yes! Are you suggesting they should take enough from your hypothetical
family and Paris Hilton so that they both have the same amount 'left over'?
And what, by the way, do you mean by a "lazy coupon-clipper"?
> One more thing Jim, regarding fairness. The average
> working guy, say a capenter or computer programmer
> can earn as good a living in any "socialist" nation
> in Europe.
He won't be able to buy much with the money, tho.
> Can a millionaire?
Sure! He just needs to choose a career in politics.
> Not likely. Why?
> Cuz Rich Boy uses more federal services than Poor Boy.
Those services are available to everyone.
> This includes most wars, interstate freeways to transport
> his goods to market, favorable treaties and domestic
> trade laws, tax breaks, open ears in his Congressmen,
> the list is endless.
>
> (Sure, Poor Boy (us) use the interstate freeways, and
> oil wars, and so on, to visit Grandma on Christmas,
> but Rich Boy *NEEDS* those services to thrive.)
Do you know what a single truck pays in fees to use those roads you use
for your license plate fee of $50 or $60?
> I'm not saying that expenses to support our Capitalistic
> economy are bad. What I'm saying is, it's *fair* for
> those who benefit most (who use it most) pay the most
> for those services. Fair is fair, Jim.
User fees are fine. Income taxes are indiscriminate. If that is your
definition of fair, then you should tax people not on what they earn in a
year, but how they earn it.
>> > You guys are so easily fooled into
>> > tailwagging for your masters! ...like working longer for less is
>> > all you deserve out of Life. That's pathetic.
>>
>> You continue to be an idiot.
>
> Open yer ears Jim.
> Look around at the way things really work.
I know how they work. Stop trying to convince me that you're smarter than
I am. Your spelling alone belies it. And it's too common a technique among the
Left to insult the other's intelligence while showing very little.
Lloyd Parsons
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
> see.m...@theBeach.edu (Crash) wrote:
>
> > in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said
> >> (Crash) wrote :
> >> > Jim Alder said about:
> >> > Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
> >> >> (Crash) wrote:
> >> >> > Jim Alder said
> >> >> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
> >> >
> >> > Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think she's ready to be
> >> > Prez!? Silly Republican
> >
> >> I think she's ready to be VICE president.
> >
> > So is any folksy dogcatcher.
>
> Oh please. If you really believe that then YOU are not suited for
> dogcatcher.
>
> > But being VICE president ain't what being VICE
> > president is REALLY about is it???
>
> Yes, it is. But that approach doesn't do the hatemongers any good, so the
> focus has to go elsewhere. Let's pretend McCain is on death's door!
>
You don't have to pretend. While he certainly doesn't appear on death's
door, he is 72, has had serious medical issues, and he would be in the
single most pressure job out there.
It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming President,
something for which she is totally not up to.
Jim Alder
C025CE.125...@news.individual.net:
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
>> see.m...@theBeach.edu (Crash) wrote:
>> > in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, Jim Alder said
>> >> (Crash) wrote :
>> >> > Jim Alder said about:
>> >> > Re: Since Republicans think Palin debated so well.....
>> >> >> (Crash) wrote:
>> >> >> > Jim Alder said
>> >> >> >> George Grapman <sfgeorge.@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> >> > ...perhaps she will hold a press conference before the election.
>> >> >
>> >> > Not likely. She's not ready for that. You think she's ready to be
>> >> > Prez!? Silly Republican
>> >
>> >> I think she's ready to be VICE president.
>> >
>> > So is any folksy dogcatcher.
>>
>> Oh please. If you really believe that then YOU are not suited for
>> dogcatcher.
>>
>> > But being VICE president ain't what being VICE president is REALLY
about
>> > is it???
>>
>> Yes, it is. But that approach doesn't do the hatemongers any good, so
the
>> focus has to go elsewhere. Let's pretend McCain is on death's door!
>>
> You don't have to pretend.
Nor do I feel the need. But Liberals do.
> While he certainly doesn't appear on death's
> door, he is 72, has had serious medical issues, and he would be in the
> single most pressure job out there.
My mother had similar medical issues that she left untreated for far too
long (without our knowledge) and she lived to be 80. My aunt is 93 and has
decided to sell her house and move into a place where her friends are. She
doesn't require 'assisted living' but it will be more convenient.
And I doubt the White House will prove to be more pressure than the Hanoi
Hilton.
> It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
> that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming President,
> something for which she is totally not up to.
I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term as
Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
Lloyd Parsons
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
But he wasn't 72 then, nor did he have the issues he has had since then.
> > It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
> > that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming President,
> > something for which she is totally not up to.
>
> I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
> governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
> training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term as
> Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
While I won't say that Obama is my favorite choice, of those running, he
is far and above them.
McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be. Palin
day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got that
time in the Alaska Governor's office.
Jim Alder
> Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
Stress builds character, and he still has that. I just heard that Clint
Eastwood is 78. Paul Newman died last week at 83.
>> > It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
>> > that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming President,
>> > something for which she is totally not up to.
>>
>> I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
>> governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
>> training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term as
>> Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
>
> While I won't say that Obama is my favorite choice, of those running, he
> is far and above them.
I've noticed, and I see you do it again here, that when those people who
claim to be for Barry Obama start telling me why he's so qualified, they never
mention his name. Do you see his name below? Me neither.
> McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be. Palin
> day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
> anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
> at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got that
> time in the Alaska Governor's office.
How could it? It's a mom and pop state, barely in need of a governor at
all. Why, it practically runs itself!
.the_pc_jellybean!!..
"Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9B3019023661j...@216.196.97.142...
> How could it? It's a m<SMAK!>
FUCK OFF ASSHOLE, YOUR "KIND" ISN'T WANTED HERE
Jim Alder
.the_pc_jellybean!!..
> <. tHe_PC_JeLLy BeAn!! . .> wrote in
> news:28bi3c....@news.alt.net:
>
>>
>> "Jim Alder" <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B3019023661j...@216.196.97.142...
>>> How could it? It's a m<SMAK!>
>>
>> FUCK OFF ASSHOLE, YOUR "KIND" ISN'T WANTED HERE
>
> Bite me, fuck face.
I dont bite pieces of steaming dogshit, you pathetic little cunt.
Lloyd Parsons
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
Well, I would agree that he IS a character! :)
Frankly, stress might build character in a younger man/woman, but too
much stress on an elderly man doesn't. If he doesn't have plenty of
character by now, he will never have it.
> >> > It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
> >> > that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming President,
> >> > something for which she is totally not up to.
> >>
> >> I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
> >> governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
> >> training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term as
> >> Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
> >
> > While I won't say that Obama is my favorite choice, of those running, he
> > is far and above them.
>
> I've noticed, and I see you do it again here, that when those people who
> claim to be for Barry Obama start telling me why he's so qualified, they
> never
> mention his name. Do you see his name below? Me neither.
>
Every election is the same. You either vote FOR your candidate, or
against the other.
Obama is a bit more liberal than I like, but he is nowhere near the
right side at all, and I like that. Early on, I was very interested in
Obama and would have voted for him. Now I'm not as enamored, so I will
vote against McCain.
> > McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be. Palin
> > day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
> > anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
> > at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got that
> > time in the Alaska Governor's office.
>
> How could it? It's a mom and pop state, barely in need of a governor at
> all. Why, it practically runs itself!
Well, then, I guess she'll never get the right experience, huh? :)
Jim Alder
Sure you do, you slimy little fuck.
Jim Alder
Good thing he does then.
>> >> > It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
>> >> > that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming
President,
>> >> > something for which she is totally not up to.
>> >>
>> >> I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
>> >> governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
>> >> training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term
as
>> >> Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
>> >
>> > While I won't say that Obama is my favorite choice, of those running, he
is
>> > far and above them.
>>
>> I've noticed, and I see you do it again here, that when those people
who
>> claim to be for Barry Obama start telling me why he's so qualified, they
>> never mention his name. Do you see his name below? Me neither.
>>
> Every election is the same. You either vote FOR your candidate, or
> against the other.
That's two things, so how can they be the same?
> Obama is a bit more liberal than I like, but he is nowhere near the
> right side at all, and I like that. Early on, I was very interested in
> Obama and would have voted for him. Now I'm not as enamored, so I will
> vote against McCain.
Then vote for Ron Paul.
>> > McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be. Palin
>> > day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
>> > anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
>> > at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got that
>> > time in the Alaska Governor's office.
>>
>> How could it? It's a mom and pop state, barely in need of a governor at
>> all. Why, it practically runs itself!
>
> Well, then, I guess she'll never get the right experience, huh? :)
Too dense for sarcasm, too, eh?
Lloyd Parsons
Jim Alder <jima...@ssnet.com> wrote:
Well, I think he IS a character, but otherwise I'm not so sure
> >> >> > It has to be considered that there is at least some reasonable chance
> >> >> > that Palin would have to step up. Stepping up means becoming
> President,
> >> >> > something for which she is totally not up to.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think anyone really is, certainly not Barack Obama. But a
> >> >> governorship followed by the vice presidency is most certainly a better
> >> >> training ground than a state senator seat followed by less than a term
> as
> >> >> Senator which consisted mostly of campaigning for President.
> >> >
> >> > While I won't say that Obama is my favorite choice, of those running, he
> >> >
> is
> >> > far and above them.
> >>
> >> I've noticed, and I see you do it again here, that when those people
> who
> >> claim to be for Barry Obama start telling me why he's so qualified, they
> >> never mention his name. Do you see his name below? Me neither.
> >>
> > Every election is the same. You either vote FOR your candidate, or
> > against the other.
>
> That's two things, so how can they be the same?
>
The two sides of the same coin? One of course, is the positive vote.
> > Obama is a bit more liberal than I like, but he is nowhere near the
> > right side at all, and I like that. Early on, I was very interested in
> > Obama and would have voted for him. Now I'm not as enamored, so I will
> > vote against McCain.
>
> Then vote for Ron Paul.
>
If I thought he had a snowball's chance in hell, I would.
> >> > McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be. Palin
> >> > day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
> >> > anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
> >> > at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got that
> >> > time in the Alaska Governor's office.
> >>
> >> How could it? It's a mom and pop state, barely in need of a governor
> >> at
> >> all. Why, it practically runs itself!
> >
> > Well, then, I guess she'll never get the right experience, huh? :)
>
> Too dense for sarcasm, too, eh?
Sometimes. What can I say, I'm old... :)
Jerry Kraus
But...But...But...I adore Sarah Palin...especially when I'm alone with
her...late at night...in my basement...
Jim Alder
Yeah, you said that already. It wasn't funny the first time. And if you
can't see character in the man, that's your problem, not his.
So instead of uber-Rightwing Ron Paul, you're going to vote for Uber-
Leftwing Obama? You really are clueless, aren't you?
>> >> > McCain's day has come and gone, he just isn't what he used to be.
Palin
>> >> > day isn't here yet, or I really hope it isn't. She hasn't shown me
>> >> > anything that would make me consider her in any national political job
>> >> > at all. Maybe she'll get better over time, but I'd rather she got
that
>> >> > time in the Alaska Governor's office.
>> >>
>> >> How could it? It's a mom and pop state, barely in need of a governor
>> >> at all. Why, it practically runs itself!
>> >
>> > Well, then, I guess she'll never get the right experience, huh? :)
>>
>> Too dense for sarcasm, too, eh?
>
> Sometimes. What can I say, I'm old... :)
And apparently senile.
Crash
in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, On Mon, 06 Oct, Jim Alder said about:
> (Crash) wrote:
> > Jim Alder said
> >> (Crash) wrote :
> >> > Jim Alder said
> >> >> (Crash) wrote:
> >> >> > Jim Alder said
..........snip
> > Have you ever considered that Repubs are being proven wrong
> > so often, the Culture of Corruption, etc is NOT a coincedence?
>
> They aren't being proven anything. Repeating lies over and over isn't
> proof, it's just an easy way to instill doubt in the average voter.
> Unfortunately.
Lies!? Do you read a newspaer!?
Any Repub homophobic faggots busted this week yet?
Will drugs or "underage" be involved?
Any Repub bribers tossed in jail this week yet?
Any Repubs indicted this week yet?
Any Repubs resigned in disgrace yet this week yet?
Toe-tapping in a public restroom?
Caught paying a male prostitute to *give* a BJ?
The Scandal-a-week Club?
You STILL support your Repub Culture of Corruption!?
> > Have you ever considered that Repubs are being proven wrong
> > so often, the Culture of Corruption, etc is NOT a coincedence?
>
> > ...that Repubs have a basic philosophic flaw?
> > Could it be Jesus was right? Could it be reverse-Robin Hood
> > is just plain wrong? ...just plain Evil?
>
> I could ask you similar questions, but you'd just dance off on a tangent.
> Again.
make my day.
>
> >> > Guess what? America aint that STOOPID. Are you?
> >
> >> >> > Welfare bankers in the news. "Socialism" too.
> >
> > ............snips
> >
> >
> > In fact the term "class envy" is just a propaganda ploy
> > used by the Rich Boys and their many bootlicks.
> > Don't fall for it Jim:
>
> Sorry. I see it every day in those voting for the Dems. And I see the Dems
> encouraging it even more.
hogwash. see below.
> >> >> Along with class envy, one of the oldest?
> >> >
> >> > Silly Republican.
> >> > In fact the term "class envy" is a political diversion
> >> > designed to diss one on the MAIN TOPICS in any understanding
> >> > of even Econ 101. It mis-labels one the MOST POWERFULL FORCES
> >> > in our economy. In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
> >> > less pay, while employees want more pay for less work. "Envy" has
> >> > nothing to do with it.
> >>
> >> That has nothing to do with my use of the term.
> >
> > Balderdash!
>
> Hey! Watch your language! There are people living in the 21st century
> here!
>
> > You and your kind call ANY self-interest
> > of the middle classes: "class envy," AND ANY self-interest
> > of the richer classes: "American Capitalism" and other
> > such warm-fuzzy terms. ...See below:
>
> No, I call attempts to make it look like those who pay 96% of the income
> taxes collected really aren't paying 'their fair share' class envy. I call
> encouraging wealth distribution by badmouthing the wealthy to be class envy.
It's all just self-interest Jim.
Seemingly you have a problem with the word "fair."
But BOTH parties in "In a nutshell: Employers want more work for
less pay, while employees want more pay for less work."
...believe the what they do because of fairness.
Drop the dittoisms Jim.
>
> >> Class envy is what Obama uses to get simpletons like you
> >> to believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair
> >> share' even though they - a minority - are paying the vast majority
> >> of the taxes paid.
Nope. It's pure self interest. The reason why we
use "fair" is because unlike you Credit Card Repubs,
we don't believe in a Free Lunch.
We know the pie is finite. We know that your
so-called "tax cuts" for the rich are REALLY tax shifts.
We understand BOTH progressive AND regresive taxation theory.
OTOH, you guys think a six-year-old's lemonaid stand
is a fair representation of basic economic principles.
In short, Republicans credit card tax-cutting free lunchers.
...A a six-year-old's lemonaid stand economic principles.
That why America is kicking you out Jim.
> >
> > From your reply, it seems we are BOTH interested
> > in fairness. Good. Perhaps we can find common ground:
>
> We're not making a very good start.
If you see self-interest as "class envy," if you
are determined to be a mind reader, or if you getting
these assumptions from GOD or Rush, then there is not
much I can do logically, is there?
Myself? Long ago I gave up trying to read minds.
I debate what people say, not what I think may
motivate them. Mental masturbation aint for me.
I'll argue Bush is a liar. But I wont argue
he invaded for xyz reason. Cuz I aint a mind reader.
I guess you are.
Here's another trick. If you MUST assign motive,
assume "they" aint stooopid or crazy. *Your guys
dismal failures are MOSTLY due to that failure.*
In short, don't assign motives you wouldn't have
in their shoes.
> >
> > From your reply, it seems we are BOTH interested
> > in fairness. Good. Perhaps we can find common ground:
>
> We're not making a very good start.
I aint trying to change yer mind Jim. I'm trying
to get to see the true viewpoint of those you argue against.
If you pay attention, you'll be a better, less foolish
looking debater.
Like most Repubs, you have no idea what liberals
believe in. You only know what the Repub talking points
in that regard...what they tell you we think.
Unlike you, I study both sides of the argument,
and I get them from the horse's mouth. Unlike you,
I'm as familiar with Limbaugh as with Randi Rhodes.
That makes me wise, your kind: foolish.
That's why I kick ass. I permit myself actual thought.
...you consider knowing the other side akin to blasphemy.
...it tears you up, you Republicans fear it like sin.
>
> >> ...believe that the rich don't pay their 'fair share' even though
> >> they - a minority - are paying the vast majority of the taxes paid.
> >
> > Yes, but often the middle classes are paying a higher
> > tax *RATE*. ...they often bear a similar or higher
> > *tax bite* as Warren Buffet is STILL explaining to
> > America. But this includes the FULL TAXATION BURDEN
> > of our COMBINED TAX *SYSTEM* of regressive and progressive
> > taxes, NOT just the progressive federal tax bite
> > your rich thought-masters want you to look at in a vacuum
> > and out of context with actual reality.
>
> If you really want to find 'common ground', you should probably stop
> referring to my 'thought masters', silly Republicans and "bootlicks." Just a
> little tip from me to you.
Yer right Jim. So if you could say something off
the Limbaugh/Hannity/Oreilly talking points, I
could talk to you as an individual.
Just a little tip from me to you: Try tossing some
liberal news (like Air America or KPFA, or Pacifica Radio)
into yer info mix. You'll be a more credible debater.
>
> > Warren Buffet only talks about *total* income tax rate,
> > progressive and regressive. But if we are talking
> > *fairness,* perhaps a few other considerations might
> > be germane. It does not seem unfair to me to consider
> > the tax bite on disposible income, - what's left after the
> > costs of mere wholesome survival are paid, such as rent,
> > health, education, fuel, insurance, and groceries.
> >
> > So Jim, do you think it's fair for a middle class working
> > family to have to reduce any of the above nessisities
> > in order to pay his taxes, while the millionaire, any
> > lazy coupon-clipper or Paris Hilton type has $900,000
> > untaxed income left over for playthings?
>
> Yes!
And claim to love America!? So your vision of America's
middle class (50k - 60k) working family is to not have
enough for good health or to educate their kids!
Well that's a good way to keep Americans down, keep
us uneducated. (Education may be the most disposible
item on that list.)
Vote Republican Jim.
> Are you suggesting they should take enough from your hypothetical
> family and Paris Hilton so that they both have the same amount 'left over'?
Nope. I NEVER suggested that. (But Limbaugh has 1000 times.)
You look pretty silly when you ape Limbaugh & Co Jim.
If you didn't get that from them, there where did that come
from? Not me.
> And what, by the way, do you mean by a "lazy coupon-clipper"?
It's a rich person who doen't work for a living.
A trust fund baby is a good example. So's Paris.
Repubs want to reduce those income taxes to zero.
...and all unearned income.
If your Repub bossess got their way, only
real work would be taxed. Think about it. Test it.
>
> > One more thing Jim, regarding fairness. The average
> > working guy, say a capenter or computer programmer
> > can earn as good a living in any "socialist" nation
> > in Europe.
>
> He won't be able to buy much with the money, tho.
>
> > Can a millionaire?
>
> Sure! He just needs to choose a career in politics.
Then we agree. A millionaire is not near as likely
or easy in Europe.
>
> > Not likely. Why?
> > Cuz Rich Boy uses more federal services than Poor Boy.
>
> Those services are available to everyone.
Yes. That does not affect my statement.
> Those services are available to everyone.
Also true in a resteurant. But there, you
PAY for what you use. All meals are not equal.
> > Cuz Rich Boy uses more federal services than Poor Boy.
> > This includes most wars, interstate freeways to transport
> > his goods to market, favorable treaties and domestic
> > trade laws, tax breaks, open ears in his Congressmen,
> > the list is endless.
> >
> > (Sure, Poor Boy (us) use the interstate freeways, and
> > oil wars, and so on, to visit Grandma on Christmas,
> > but Rich Boy *NEEDS* those services to thrive.)
>
> Do you know what a single truck pays in fees to use those roads you use
> for your license plate fee of $50 or $60?
Now you squeal unfair! Should I attack you for that?
Wouldn't that make me look silly?
But you make my point. He aint Rich Boy. He's Poor Boy.
Like us. However, his wear and tear is about 50X
my Toyota. Look it up. Fair is fair.
>
> > I'm not saying that expenses to support our Capitalistic
> > economy are bad. What I'm saying is, it's *fair* for
> > those who benefit most (who use it most) pay the most
> > for those services. Fair is fair, Jim.
>
> User fees are fine. Income taxes are indiscriminate. If that is your
> definition of fair, then you should tax people not on what they earn in a
> year, but how they earn it.
Huh!? I never said that.
A Rich person is getting more from our system
because he's using more of our system.
Unlike the "socialist" nations of western Europe,
our system is more stratified and now has less
upward mobility. Because our system caters to
Richboy at the above-noted expense of the middle
class, Rich Boy should pay more for that meal.
A Rich person is getting more from our system
because he's using more of our system.
Fair is fair.
> >> > You guys are so easily fooled into
> >> > tailwagging for your masters! ...like working longer for less is
> >> > all you deserve out of Life. That's pathetic.
> >>
> >> You continue to be an idiot.
> >
> > Open yer ears Jim.
> > Look around at the way things really work.
>
> I know how they work. Stop trying to convince me that you're smarter than
> I am. Your spelling alone belies it. And it's too common a technique among the
> Left to insult the other's intelligence while showing very little.
I'm not the one using talk radio talking points Jim.
You guys are funny. If say; a newspaper calls
Bush a failure, in your eyes that makes them liberal!!!!
Why dont you prove me wrong Jim. Why dont you
prove that you understand (not agree with) my words.
Prove that I am wrong in my assumption that you so
fear actual real "liberal ideas" as blasphemy, that
you are utterly unable to understand my explanation.
That should be easy enough. If I were wrong.
Look, there's a part of me that honestly LIKES someone
like Palin. I meet SARAH PALINS EVERY DAY. But I
wouldn't want the hair dresser at the local Super Cuts
to suddenly be President of the United States.