OT- political...only for republicans

On Aug 31, 2:08*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:28*am, D. LaCourse wrote:



On 2010-08-31 01:38:59 -0400, DaveS said:

And another thing, it is not nice to withhold food from people until
they repeat the hate Obama script. Just is not right. What if they
repeated the script in Spanish? Could they still get some of the food?
If they said they were ****ed at Obama in French would you give them a
bigger bag of food? Would you ever let an American born mechanic work
on your Fascist ****ing Kraut piece of ****? Why do you hate America
so much? No offence.

What the hell are you talking about, Dave? *I withhold food from no one
at the pantry. *I talk with them when they get their food. *I see them
once a month and get to know them over a period of time. *Even the ones
who can not speak English very well. *They expected more from Obama -
he promised them **** that he couldn't produce. *And, the new ones we
see, the not so newly unemployed who finally have to come in for
food/help are really ****ed at him. *If it's tough for those that are
working, think how it must be for those who are not, especially those
who have worked all their life and can't find a job at age 50.

I do not - repeat- do not listen to Limbaugh. *I am not a fan of his. *
I have watched Beck, but I do not fawn over him like you think. *He's a
talk jock. *Why are you so afraid of him? *He has no power.

Fascist Kraut? *I'm thinking more of the fascist auto worker and my government.

Why do YOU, of all people, hate America more than Fortenberry? *No
offence. *Really.

Dave

Uha huh. Why I just betcha that all those unemployed are just ****y
****y off-ed at that Obama fellow. Right you are right you are David.
And, without any egging on by you in your monthly walk ons they are
just bursting with irritation at that Obama fellow. And I bet they
don't say **** about your car fetish, why they must know just how
deserving they are of your scorn for American vehicles and American
workers. Bull****. And who do you think you are kidding about where
you get the lines you copy out? Really.

Like some folks who come from humble beginnings, you need somehow to
justify your success and really your luck, that your hard work and
good fortune paid off. Must be some reason right? Some attribute what
they cannot understand via linear thinking. Some attribute success to
religion, or to some slickster preacher. Some to wonder pills or
bizarre diet. Some just use the good ole American approach and blame
it on the Black guy.

What your team has going for it right now is AMNESIA. Period. All thru
the corruption, the stealing, the wasting of patriotic young Americans
you towed the party line. You would have made a loyal Bolshevik proud,
just from some of the bizarre double speak you used to explain away
the absolute mess and betrayal of this country orchestrated by the
Rightards. Now you are right there with the other hecklers. Shame on
you.

Dave

....anybody know what he is talking about...........?

MajorOz wrote:
DaveS wrote:
...
What your team has going for it right now is AMNESIA. Period. All thru
the corruption, the stealing, the wasting of patriotic young Americans
you towed the party line. You would have made a loyal Bolshevik proud,
just from some of the bizarre double speak you used to explain away
the absolute mess and betrayal of this country orchestrated by the
Rightards. Now you are right there with the other hecklers. Shame on
you.

...anybody know what he is talking about...........?

Yeah, anybody with a brain knows *exactly* what he's talking about.
And shame on you too.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 22:12:38 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

MajorOz wrote:
DaveS wrote:
...
What your team has going for it right now is AMNESIA. Period. All thru
the corruption, the stealing, the wasting of patriotic young Americans
you towed the party line. You would have made a loyal Bolshevik proud,
just from some of the bizarre double speak you used to explain away
the absolute mess and betrayal of this country orchestrated by the
Rightards. Now you are right there with the other hecklers. Shame on
you.

...anybody know what he is talking about...........?

Yeah, anybody with a brain knows *exactly* what he's talking about.

Well, half a brain, anyway....

And shame on you too.

"Shame, shame, sha-a-a-a-a-me, shame of fools...."

HTH,
R

On Aug 31, 9:49*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 21:45:47 -0400, Giles said:





On Aug 31, 8:44*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 21:30:34 -0400, Giles said:

On Aug 31, 4:26*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 15:08:44 -0400, DaveS said:

On Aug 31, 3:28*am, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 01:38:59 -0400, DaveS said:

And another thing, it is not nice to withhold food from people unti
l
they repeat the hate Obama script. Just is not right. What if they
repeated the script in Spanish? Could they still get some of the fo
od
?
If they said they were ****ed at Obama in French would you give the
m
a
bigger bag of food? Would you ever let an American born mechanic wo
rk
on your Fascist ****ing Kraut piece of ****? Why do you hate Americ
a
so much? No offence.

What the hell are you talking about, Dave? *I withhold food from n
o
one
at the pantry. *I talk with them when they get their food. *I se
e
the
m
once a month and get to know them over a period of time. *Even the
*o
nes
who can not speak English very well. *They expected more from Obam
a
-
he promised them **** that he couldn't produce. *And, the new ones
*w
e
see, the not so newly unemployed who finally have to come in for
food/help are really ****ed at him. *If it's tough for those that
ar
e
working, think how it must be for those who are not, especially thos
e
who have worked all their life and can't find a job at age 50.

I do not - repeat- do not listen to Limbaugh. *I am not a fan of h
is
.
*
I have watched Beck, but I do not fawn over him like you think. *H
e'
s a
talk jock. *Why are you so afraid of him? *He has no power.

Fascist Kraut? *I'm thinking more of the fascist auto worker and m
y
gov
ernment.

Why do YOU, of all people, hate America more than Fortenberry? *No
offence. *Really.

Dave

Uha huh. Why I just betcha that all those unemployed are just ****y
****y off-ed at that Obama fellow.

They are ****ed at their country. *They have fallen through the crac
k
through no fault of their own. *They *were* the working poor. *Now
*th
ey
are the unemployed poor and the fool in DC has done nothing for them..
*
Now, if they were members of the AFL/CIO or SEIU or Acorn, they would
be happy. *But, they aren't. *They're just hard working parents li
ke
my
parents were and for the first time in their life they are without
work. *They got raises through the merit system, not by corruption..

Obama's name never comes into the conversation. *Sit in your palace
Dave, and fiddle. *We served 53 families today, well over 150 people
,
with enough food for a week. *We have very little meat for them - on
ly
what is donated by the local markets. *FDA supplies have been
drastically cut. *We have three empty freezers and two filled with F
DA
blueberries. *Blueberries! *Our two stand-up double fridges are fi
lle
d
with FDA cheese and deli items donated by the local markets. *
Blueberries and cheese. That's it from you precious fool in the WH. We
have never seen such hard times. *We have plenty of can goods/cereal
that we buy at a great discount, and fruits/veggies left over from
supermarkets, but very little federal support. *Why, I wonder. *Co
uld
it be that a lot of our money has gone to the unions and SEIU? *Didn
't
we just spend a trillion bucks to "stimulate" the economy? *Tell ya
what, Dave - there are few in Lowell, Mass who are "stimulated."

Right you are right you are David.
And, without any egging on by you in your monthly walk ons they are
just bursting with irritation at that Obama fellow.

Obama's name doesnt come into the conversation. *They are ****ed at
what this country has become, and it sure as hell isn't their fauls.

*And I bet they
don't say **** about your car fetish, why they must know just how
deserving they are of your scorn for American vehicles and American
workers.

Yeah, sure. *I've owned the same care for the past 8 years. *I've
nev
er
had an American car last *me* more than 3 years. *You do the math.
*I
admit - I like fast cars and I find the time to take my car at least
once a month to the track. *That's a fetish? *****, what is my fly
fishing?

*Bull****. And who do you think you are kidding about where
you get the lines you copy out? Really.

Like some folks who come from humble beginnings, you need somehow to
justify your success and really your luck, that your hard work and
good fortune paid off. Must be some reason right? Some attribute what
they cannot understand via linear thinking. Some attribute success to
religion, or to some slickster preacher. Some to wonder pills or
bizarre diet. Some just use the good ole American approach and blame
it on the Black guy.

Huh? *My success is through hard work and the idea planted by my
parents to save and prepare for later in life. *I was fortunate to b
e
employed full time since highschool until my retirements (3 of them)..
*
I never needed or expected a hand out and no one offered me one. *I
am
now reaping the benefits of that planning, all that saving, and dare I
say extra jobs while I was in the Navy. *So, **** you very much if I
*am
successful.

What your team has going for it right now is AMNESIA. Period. All thr
u
the corruption, the stealing, the wasting of patriotic young American
s
you towed the party line.

What the hell is going on NOW? *Are you blind? *You can't see or h
ear
? *
The past two years will go down in history as the "spend like a drunke
n
sailor" period.

You would have made a loyal Bolshevik proud,
just from some of the bizarre double speak you used to explain away
the absolute mess and betrayal of this country orchestrated by the
Rightards. Now you are right there with the other hecklers.

I am sure the Republicans have done their fare share of screwing up.
*
That is a given. *No argument from me about that. *Everyone is DC
is
corrupt. *THAT is what Beck's rally was about. *He is trying to re
sto
re
faith, hope, and charity (love) in this society. *Listen to the hate
speech from commentators on the "major" networks, and then listen to
what went on during his rally. *There was a lot of prayer, but no ha
te
that I heard. *They were called vile names, but did not reply. *DR
.
MLK's neice was there praising what they were trying to do. *I guess
*it
just went over your head, what with it being so big, can you imagine
the power involved.

Shame on
you.

No, David, shame on you for not seeing the huckster your savior in the
White House is. *Shame on you for voting for him when he had no
credentials for POTUS. *Shame on your and all other progressives for
allowing Nancy and Harry to perform a shotgun wedding on healthcare
when more than 60% of the population did not want what they were
selling, or should I say stealing? *Shame on you for allowing them t
o
spend more in 18 months than all the money EVER spent my government.
*
Shame on you for not saying anything about Chris Dodd and Barney
Frank's involvement with Fannie and Freddy. Shame on you for sitting i
n
your ivory tower fiddling and doing nothing. *And shame on ALL of us
for letting it continue.

Dave

Liar.

Imbecile.

Pig.

g.

Giddy up, MY one trick pony! *I always wanted a pony. *Hell, I don't
care if he can do only one trick. *He's *my* pony. *Giddy up.- Hide q
uoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Moron.

g.

Awwww. *Your just jealous 'cuz you don't have a pony. Tsktsktsk. *Let
me tell ya, it is sweet having a one trick pony all to myself. *Giddy
up, pony, giddy up.

d;o)

Idiot

g.

On Aug 31, 9:51*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 21:55:09 -0400, Giles said:





On Aug 31, 8:46*pm, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-08-31 21:32:13 -0400, Giles said:

On Aug 31, 4:23*am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
wrote in message

m...

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys,
*B
ob
Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

essentially beat me to the point. We've cultivated a nation of fools,

well, fools and lickspittles.

g.

snort/snicker/chortle- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Idiot.

g.

snort/chortle/snicker Giddy up, pony boy, giddy up. *Do your one
trick for everyone to see.

d;o)

Cretin

g.

On 8/31/2010 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, wrote:

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades."

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


my inquiry was relatively straightforward, but i reckon it could be seen
as another request for the definition of "is". g

after watching numerous elected republican "politicians" avoid giving a
direct response to the simple question of whether obama is a muslim or
born in america, or refuse to state that they disagree with many of the
absurd statements of Limbaugh, beck, etc, simply because so many of
their constituent "partisans" believe the myth, i understand the "some
partisans" statement to be broader than beck, limbaugh, and the
murdoch-lemminghead$ on fox. (beck is simply jim/tammy baker all over
again imo) they shape and incite and provide "talking points" for the
partisans, who elect the republican politicians (also partisans), who
ooze about with the flow of partisan opinion (stimulated by beck-ites)
to get elected. (...and, i know the broader argument and criticism has
no party or politician barriers, but i was asking republicans about
matters that seemed fairly basic to me.)

thinking we had a number of more resolute, thinking republicans here, i
thought perhaps a few would chime in and expressly disavow the patent
lunacy of "some partisans" in their party. of course, wolfgang was way
ahead of me with regard to the response.

....and, i agree with much of what you say.

jeff

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:55:26 -0400, jeff wrote:

On 8/31/2010 9:02 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 06:43:04 -0400, wrote:

On 8/31/2010 12:56 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:04:53 -0400, wrote:

"And where, in all of this, are the responsible Republicans, leaders who
will stand up and say that some partisans are going too far? Nowhere to
be found."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/30/op...e&ref=homepage

Oh, OK...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...wpisrc=nl_most

Where, in all of this, are the responsible adults, the Bill Bradleys, Bob Doles,
Pat Moynihans and Bill Buckleys...

...or Thomas Jefferson and John Adams...

HTH,
R

ck's op/ed column is a regular in my eastern nc papers, so i've read
that one. he's an oddity to me. a brilliant guy, once hard to peg, but
now, like many, too predictable. he generally makes a reasoned argument,
though always from the "conservative", sometimes neo, point of view that
never allows anything other than an adversarial argument against
anything and all things obama. in contrast, if read to its end,
krugman's piece is critical of obama...as have been other of his writings.

still, i think ck and many others are usually off the mark about obama,
but strategically and for election and/or partisan purposes use him as
the easy focus for their larger debate or proselytizing.

this ck piece isn't about the idiots like beck and the foxwits who
foment their particular lunacy to our fahrenheit 451 population, and it
doesn't answer the question posed, does it? but then, you didn't intend
it to serve that purpose did you?

since the ck piece doesn't answer my question...nor does your question,
though i get the point. again...

"And where, in all of this, are the **responsible Republicans**,
**leaders** who will stand up and say that **some partisans** are going
too far?"

Name these "partisans" and define "too far." I'm not saying I agree with
whoever all you and Krugman have in mind, nor do I say that I disagree with
them, but since Krugman only mentions, specifically, Limbaugh, the Kochs, and
Steve Schwarzman (but fails to mention Soros, etc. on "the Left"), and then,
only a single phrase uttered by Limbaugh and a paraphrasing of a single phrase
by Schwarzman, it's kinda hard to pinpoint just who you and he want these,
"**leaders**" (again, unnamed, save for Bush) to chastise (or muzzle). I did
notice in both pieces that Krugman and Krauthammer extensively use all-inclusive
and ill-defined plurals (the good ol' "we" and "they") in their accusations.

The problem, as I see it, is that neither "liberalism" or "conservatism" have
failed, but rather, the "labels" have been appropriated by many who don't have a
clue (and worse, a care) of what _any_ of it actually means. And this includes
those who claim to be "liberals" using "conservative" as a slur and vice-versa.

Both classical liberalism and "modern" liberalism have some good ideas as well
as some great _ideals_, that, unfortunately, simply won't work in current
society, and the same is true of conservatism. Unfortunately, it appears that
the vast majority of the squeakiest wheels claiming title to one and
condescendingly slurring with the other have no clue or care about such.

These folks have simply used, ahem, "talking points" that they don't truly
understand, about issues they don't really care, to further their own _personal_
desires for what they perceive as "power," "fame," personal "wealth," reelection
for reelection's sake, etc. The US has created a society in which a large
portion of the population, on all levels, presumes itself somehow entitled, from
the multi-generational welfare "clients" to the Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans
who presume themselves entitled to act in any fashion to the Obamas, Limbaughs,
Axelrods, Becks, etc., who presume that they are somehow, for some unexplained
reason, _entitled_ to be not only _correct_ in their opinions at all times, but
have the right to dictate what's correct for others.

One need look no further than the housing market - the idea that _everyone_ is
_entitled_ to _owning_ a home is ridiculous, and the idea that _anyone_ is
_entitled_ to granite counters, high-end cabinets, 3 1/2 bathrooms, and a 2-car
garage (much less 2 cars) is totally preposterous. Hell, in many cities in the
US, buying and "fixing up" what were originally "starter homes" is/was a popular
fad among relatively affluent, generally younger, people. Many millionaires
live in (comparatively) small urban apartments. Yet, somehow, many of those
with $30-40K yearly incomes have come to believe they are _entitled_ to
3,000-plus SF (and larger) homes with all sorts of "upgrades."

Until the wholesale "entitlement" problem (and no, I do not mean things like
milk for kids or food and shelter for those who legitimately cannot provide, all
or in part, for themselves) is addressed, throwing more and more money into the
pit will not ever fill it up because it too many folks are shoveling just as
fast as they ****ing can.

TC,
R


my inquiry was relatively straightforward, but i reckon it could be seen
as another request for the definition of "is". g

after watching numerous elected republican "politicians" avoid giving a
direct response to the simple question of whether obama is a muslim or
born in america, or refuse to state that they disagree with many of the
absurd statements of Limbaugh, beck, etc, simply because so many of
their constituent "partisans" believe the myth, i understand the "some
partisans" statement to be broader than beck, limbaugh, and the
murdoch-lemminghead$ on fox. (beck is simply jim/tammy baker all over
again imo) they shape and incite and provide "talking points" for the
partisans, who elect the republican politicians (also partisans), who
ooze about with the flow of partisan opinion (stimulated by beck-ites)
to get elected. (...and, i know the broader argument and criticism has
no party or politician barriers, but i was asking republicans about
matters that seemed fairly basic to me.)

thinking we had a number of more resolute, thinking republicans here, i
thought perhaps a few would chime in and expressly disavow the patent
lunacy of "some partisans" in their party. of course, wolfgang was way
ahead of me with regard to the response.

Sorry, but I cannot comment, positively or negatively, on the vast majority of
what Limbaugh, Beck, Matthews, Olberman, etc., etc., etc. say because I do not
listen to or watch any of them. IME, they are little more than entertainers and
none of them are in the least bit entertaining for me. If someone/some other
source doesn't tell me about a particular statement, I'd never know it had been
made. And frankly, I don't give any of them enough thought to have a strong
opinion beyond the fact that I'm not terribly interested in whatever their
latest shtick might be. But that said, I don't think any of them should be
censored or otherwise interfered with, as long as whatever they say is protected
speech.

As to the specifics of Limbaugh making whatever comments about Obama's being a
Muslim and his place of birth, here are my positions:

1) I don't give a flying **** if Obama (or any other pol) is a Muslim, a Jew, a
Christian or an atheist - it's his business. It appears to me that the man has
tried very hard to keep it his business, too. I guess if I had to offer a
_preference_, it'd be that he (or any other pol, US or otherwise) would be a
decent man of personal faith rather than religion, and by a happy coincidence,
that is exactly what he appears to be.

2) Where he was born - from all the reasonable evidence offered thus far, it
seems pretty clear he was born in Hawaii, but if not, it is a non-issue. Under
the intent of Constitution, he is eligible to be POTUS. Bury that issue and
then bury the shovel.

...and, i agree with much of what you say.

TC,
R

jeff

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:27:50 -0500, wrote:

2) Where he was born - from all the reasonable evidence offered thus far, it
seems pretty clear he was born in Hawaii, but if not, it is a non-issue. Under
the intent of Constitution, he is eligible to be POTUS. Bury that issue and
then bury the shovel.

Let me add, however, my opinion of the "non-issue" of it is from a purely legal,
Constitutional sense. If, in the _extremely_ remote chance it did turn out that
he and others had lied/conspired to conceal those facts, that would be a whole
'nuther issue. IOW, if he had been born in Kenya (or wherever) and had always
disclosed that fact, but all other facts of his birth and life remained the
same, he would be eligible. But since his turning out to having been born in a
location other than Hawaii and Forty turning into an Obama-hating Reagan
worshipper seem to have equal chances of occurring, bury the issue and then bury
the shovel...

TC,
R

On Aug 30, 5:15*pm, Frank Reid © 2010

I'm so sick and tired of "big corporations and
banks are bad." *Bull. *They happen to make a lot of the useless crap
we buy. *They employ tons of people.

They've also worked very hard over the last few decades to stack the
deck against "the people". They could care less about people. Why are
big corps sitting on mountains of cash and refusing to hire? Why are
big banks making record profits (and doling out hefty bonuses) while
refusing to make loans? Why have the last few decades seen the
greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom 95% to the upper 5%? BTW
corporations now enjoy the Bill of Rights just like you do -- how's
that for power?

Yeah, I'm part of the middle too. None of the above couldn't have
happened without BOTH the major parties in collusion to make it
happen. Fire 'em all as far as I'm concerned.

A few good reads from a site I frequent:

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/20...nvisible-fist/

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/20...he-plutocracy/

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/20...he-doom-cycle/

Lest you think that FPR is a far-left site, actually most of the
authors would generally be classified as quite conservative. But most
assuredly NOT Republican.

Enjoy,

Jon.

On Sep 1, 7:38*am, wrote:
On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 07:27:50 -0500, wrote:
2) Where he was born - from all the reasonable evidence offered thus far, it
seems pretty clear he was born in Hawaii, but if not, it is a non-issue. *Under
the intent of Constitution, he is eligible to be POTUS. *Bury that issue and
then bury the shovel.

Let me add, however, my opinion of the "non-issue" of it is from a purely legal,
Constitutional sense. *If, in the _extremely_ remote chance it did turn out that
he and others had lied/conspired to conceal those facts, that would be a whole
'nuther issue. *IOW, if he had been born in Kenya (or wherever) and had always
disclosed that fact, but all other facts of his birth and life remained the
same, he would be eligible. *But since his turning out to having been born in a
location other than Hawaii and Forty turning into an Obama-hating Reagan
worshipper seem to have equal chances of occurring, bury the issue and then bury
the shovel...

TC,
R

O.k. Nothing to say.....got it. So then, what's the purpose of years
of cavilling bull**** verbiage?

Seriously.

g.