OutSourcedNews-Group

Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:
Re: Looks Like FAUX Snews thought you should not see this

Date:
Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:09:10 -0500

From:
Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything@&#$?%Talk-n-dog.com>

Newsgroups:
alt.basement.graveyard,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.republicans,talk.politics.guns,rec.radio.shortwave

References:
<hk0p6s$6fr$1@&#$?%news.eternal-september.org>
<buSdneoY-ZvuBvnWnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@&#$?%mchsi.com>
<hk2ogm$rqb$1@&#$?%news.eternal-september.org>
<Xns9D1168F7B5BBFhopewell@&#$?%216.196.97.130>
<4b66e4b9$0$31476$bd467cd0@&#$?%news.dslextreme.com>
<4b66fe52$0$32540$ec3e2dad@&#$?%unlimited.usenetmonster.com>
<4b68253a$0$31020$bd467cd0@&#$?%news.dslextreme.com>

On 2/2/2010 8:15 AM, dave wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 2/1/2010 9:27 AM, dave wrote:
>>> RD (The Sandman) wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> C-SPAN IS government funded. It is also pretty non partisan since it
>>>> does not have political commentators like PBS does.
>>>
>>>
>>> Funded by subscribers, not taxpayers.
>>
>> PBS gets government grants…. that’s tax payers money.
>
> But the subject is C/SPAN

Quoting you guys….
“political commentators like PBS does.”

The subject line says FAUX and where did CSPAM come in to this?

But then who cares what you think the subject should be, the question is
why other things are somehow not allowed to be mentioned… is this a
court of law where you “the judge” restrict what can and can’t be used
in question or answer in these posts?

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< NO >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

*PBS is government supported Liberal-Leftist swill* . Just like NPR
is…. it’s ridiculous that my money is stolen to support ideological
propaganda when *we have free speech* and the very same PBS people and
Corporations could use their own money to say these things, all they
want. The court just said they have the right to spend and that would
mean they also have no right to interfere with my right.

The government is violating my first amendment in both freedom of the
press, where government is interfering by supporting one press over all
others, “interfere” would be helping particular “news organizations” as
well as suppressing free press. Free speech where government is taking
“my” money to say things that I don’t want my money used to say, is NOT
free speech for me.

If government forcibly takes my money and uses it to say something, then
they have forcibly made me say something I didn’t want to say and it’s
as bad as forcing me to pray to a God that I don’t want to Pray too, or
confessing to crimes because government is torturing me, GOVERNMENT
supposedly can’t force you to say anything, yet that is exactly what
they are doing. Since spending money for political speech is free
speech, you spending my money on political speech is also speech and PBS
is a corporation using free speech, if so the government suppressed my
free speech by taking my money and using it for others free speech. In
essence the government has taxed away and REDISTRIBUTED my money and
therefore redistributed my free speech to a Corporation.

Do you notice that the Private Sector Economy is barely discussed and
this economic news is about government and Obama. There is no private
sector as far as Obama is concerned. We no longer have an economy, we
have Government and Government is becoming the driving force of peoples
survival. You go to the government, not your own economic plans.

*Not one story below of any Private business that is a success*

**************** *Economy News* ****************

US-BUSINESS Summary
World stocks rebound, Aussie hit by RBA LONDON (Reuters) – World stocks
bounced back on Tuesday after hitting three-month lows a day earlier,
but gains were limited ahead of key economic data and rate decisions
from the European Central Bank and the Bank …
5 hours, 12 minutes ago

Obama’s Plan: Deficits Now, Budget Discipline Later
The federal deficit will hit record heights this coming year, in part
because the Obama administration wants to spend another $100 billion on
immediate tax cuts and government spending to spur job growth. But even
when the economy is on stronger footing, …
7 hours, 15 minutes ago

[FACT CHECK: Obama budget a leap of faith on growth] FACT CHECK: Obama
budget a leap of faith on growth
AP – President Barack Obama’s proposed budget relies on a commission
without teeth to help his administration wrestle the deficit out of the
danger zone. It forecasts stronger economic growth than most economists
expect and calls on Congress to cut progra …
7 hours, 28 minutes ago

[Obama touts federal help for small businesses] Obama touts federal help
for small businesses
AP – President Barack Obama’s bid to sell his economic agenda and
re-energize voters picks up in politically significant New Hampshire,
where he will again promote an idea to free up more cash for hurting
smaller businesses.
7 hours, 48 minutes ago

[Obama budget, jobs plan get early tests on Hill] Obama budget, jobs
plan get early tests on Hill
AP – President Barack Obama’s proposed budget, stuffed with initiatives
to spark jobs and the economy, is getting an early test with lawmakers
weary of record deficits, wary of his tax ideas and nervous about
winning re-election in November.
7 hours, 56 minutes ago

Asia stocks mostly lower after US economic reports
HONG KONG — Asian stock markets were mostly lower Tuesday as positive
U.S. economic reports failed to ease worries about the global recovery.
8 hours, 54 minutes ago

[Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit] Obama budget: Record
spending, record deficit
AP – Spelling out painful priorities, President Barack Obama urged
Congress on Monday to quickly approve a huge new shot of spending for
recession relief and job creation, part of a record $3.8 trillion budget
that would boost the deficit beyond any in th …
10 hours, 45 minutes ago

Volcker Looms Larger as Support for Bernanke Strengthens Ties
Bloomberg – Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) — Paul Volcker is enjoying
increasedinfluence with the Federal Reserve as well as the
Obamaadministration, central bank records show.
11 hours, 15 minutes ago

Government data show an ongoing but uneven economic recovery
In another sign of the nation’s uneven economic recovery, new data
released Monday showed manufacturing activity at its highest level in
more than five years while consumer demand continued to moderate.
11 hours, 15 minutes ago

China’s new foreign policy takes shape – in Moldova
Reuters – Small, poor nations without significant mineral deposits are
unlikely candidates for investment by the world’s third-largest economy.
16 hours, 9 minutes ago

Business Highlights
– Toyota tells dealers parts on way to fix pedals
17 hours, 27 minutes ago

Dollar retreats on strong economic reports
NEW YORK — The dollar was mostly lower against major currencies Monday
and retreated from a six-month high against the euro as strong economic
reports prompted investors to dump the low-yielding U.S. currency for
riskier bets.
17 hours, 56 minutes ago

Manufacturing expands but shows few job gains
Reuters – U.S. manufacturing expanded in January at its fastest pace
since 2004 but consumers increased their spending only slightly in
December, worried by job prospects and the state of the economy.
18 hours, 4 minutes ago

[Factory activity fueling modest economic recovery] Factory activity
fueling modest economic recovery
AP – Hopes that America’s factories will help drive the economic
recovery gained support Monday from news that manufacturing activity
grew in January to its strongest point since 2004.
18 hours, 11 minutes ago

Obama’s 2010 budget: deficit soars amid job spending
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to halve
a record 2010 budget deficit by the end of his first term in office, but
made tackling double-digit unemployment his immediate priority with a
spending plan that risked public ire an …
18 hours, 43 minutes ago

Treasury Dept. projects $392B in 1Q borrowing
AP – The Treasury Department says it expects to borrow $392 billion in
the current quarter to help finance the largest annual budget deficit in
history.
18 hours, 49 minutes ago

Fewer banks imposing new loan hurdles; demand low
AP – Fewer banks are erecting new hurdles for people and businesses to
get loans, a fresh sign credit problems are easing.
19 hours, 8 minutes ago

[Recession top factor in swelling budget deficits] Recession top factor
in swelling budget deficits
AP – As costly as President Barack Obama’s proposals to revive the
economy are, they pale in comparison to the impact the recession has had
on the federal budget and its astonishingly huge deficits.
19 hours, 40 minutes ago

Alumni Come Out In Droves To Support Sumner High
Sumner High School in St. Louis has been one of the premiere
institutions of black education in the U.S. — producing famous alumni
like Chuck Berry, Tina Turner and Arthur Ashe. But recent safety
concerns prompted the St. Louis Public Schools superintende …
20 hours, 15 minutes ago

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Social Workers of the world unite >>OR<< Social Workers
Gone Wild
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:38:14 -0500
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited – http://www.usenetmonster.com
Newsgroups:
alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.conspiracy

Social Workers of the World Unite
>>OR<<
Social Workers Gone Wild

Obama brought with him a bunch of *Social Workers* people that want to
micro manage your life as they have done before in their roll as some
specter of social workers. They may call themselves something like
community organizers, College Professors, ACLU lawyers…. the truth
is that it's all just government supported social workers.

This is the reason that they are strangely pre-occupied with "helping
the poor" and all their plans for helping the poor involve taking from
someone else first. Rather than helping the poor to make things better
for themselves. Typical of Social Workers, they are locked into the
idea that government taking money and them(Social Workers) giving it out
to people is "help"…..

Yet when you see information on alcoholics and drug addicts and other
harmful behavior the people that "help" the addicts are called
"enablers". The behaviorist say it's not up to you but the person has
to want to recover and needs to do it for themselves with guidance…..

But the Social workers now in power want to force you and everyone into
rehab and force the healing on you. What a recipe for disaster.

On 1/28/2010 11:16 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>> duckstandard wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>>>> John Stafford wrote
>>>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>
>>>>>>>> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-2010012…
>>>>>>>> 04.story
>
>>>>>>>> Following a long tradition of democrats since after JFK was assinated,
>>>>>>>> Obama wants to gut the space program and kill the moon mission.
>
>>>>>>> Do you want war or the moon missions? IOW, to make the earth a better
>>>>>>> place now while it’s affordable, or wait until it’s too late to do anything?
>
>>>>>> The moon mission was always a comparatively small part of the
>>>>>> budget, along with all of NASA. We had both “war” and the moon
>>>>>> mission in the 1960s and should be able to afford to do so now.
>>>>>> In fact, today the moon mission is almost a military mission.
>
>>>>>> My point is more that historically JFK was the last dem to
>>>>>> support a bold space program. After him the dems had
>>>>>> more of an attitude of “lets give the money to poor people!”
>
>>>>> Surely if there is money for war, there is money for the poor.
>
>>>> That makes no sense.
>
>>> We’ll see…
>
>>>> Our first need is a place to live free without being killed.
>
>>> That hasnt been a problem for a hell of a long time now.
>
>>> The US didnt have to get involved in WW1 or WW2 or the
>>> Cold War or Vietnam or Korea or anything since on that basis.
>
>>>> If you are in the desert and have enough water to keep one person
>>>> alive for the whole journey or two people to die but die two days before
>>>> you get more water. Do you split the water and both die or would you
>>>> decide on which will likely make it and let them have the water?
>
>>> Irrelevant question. The US has never ever been in that situation.
>
>>>> Now do you protect the NATION or do you split the
>>>> funds and give to the poor while the enemy kills you?
>
>>> There is no enemy that will kill anyone if the poor get given half of the money.
>
>> No one is stopping you and the other Liberals from giving half that money to the poor,
>
> In fact that has been going on for decades now right thruout the modern first world.
>
> You get to like that or lump it and hang yourself any time you like.
>
>> all you need to do is lower your taxes so that
>> you can keep and spend that money how you like.
>
> In fact we keep hiking the taxes fools like you pay and you get to like that or lump that too.
>
>
And we keep spending on Defence and the poor get what’s left over.
Looks like you need to lower the taxes and personally give your money to
the poor.

I intend to keep pushing to spend on Defence and the poor get the
scraps. The only thing you can do to stop me is to work for lower taxes
so you can control your own money.

On 1/27/2010 11:15 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jan 27, 7:21 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 7:00 pm, Chaos out of Order wrote:
>>>> On Jan 25, 4:12 pm, striker…@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>> Does anyone see anything positive long-term? What do we have to sell?
>>>>> And if we do, somebody else can do it cheaper and better.
>>
>>>>> striker
>>
>>>>> (I keep thinking the Ids of March, maybe should
>>>>> move ahead to Feb.)
>>
>>>> I’ve always viewed Wall Street as a cancer upon our economy. People
>>>> growing wealthy without contributing anything but money seems very
>>>> wrong to me. They invest no sweat or ideas. They demand much more
>>>> than they put in, expecting those who do invest themselves in a
>>>> venture to make sacrifices so that they can reap larger rewards.
>>>> Perhaps its time to think of new ways to finance our economy, taking
>>>> these leeches out of the loop.
>>
>> Then what are UNIONS?
>
> i know this will be difficult for you to understand. but please try.
> unions are simply legal representation for american workers.

Do unions invest sweat? NO…? Kinda like Bankers aren’t they.

> corporations have legions of lawyers who know the law in and out, and
> in many cases, get the law crafted by them. to have a lone working
> america, go up against a well oiled, well represented, wealthy
> company, is a recipe for disaster, such as what we have today.

The law is equal… The question is why did you make the laws so
intrusive and complicated.

> tens of millions of unrepresented workers, who’s wages are so small,
> that they can no longer service their debt, pay their bills, nor save.

Save money like the Socialists workers in USSR did?

*The union workers* at GM who would now have *zero money* , had it not
been for *NON union workers* taxes paying for the UNION workers to get a
free ride?

I see your point. And it stinks.

On 1/27/2010 11:06 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>> duckstandard wrote
>>> AZDuffman wrote
>>>> John Stafford wrote
>>>>> AZDuffman wrote
>
>>>>>> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-no-moon-for-nasa-2010012…
>>>>>> 04.story
>
>>>>>> Following a long tradition of democrats since after JFK was assinated,
>>>>>> Obama wants to gut the space program and kill the moon mission.
>
>>>>> Do you want war or the moon missions? IOW, to make the earth a better
>>>>> place now while it’s affordable, or wait until it’s too late to do anything?
>
>>>> The moon mission was always a comparatively small part of the
>>>> budget, along with all of NASA. We had both “war” and the moon
>>>> mission in the 1960s and should be able to afford to do so now.
>>>> In fact, today the moon mission is almost a military mission.
>>
>>>> My point is more that historically JFK was the last dem to support a
>>>> bold space program. After him the dems had more of an attitude of
>>>> “lets give the money to poor people!”
>
>>> Surely if there is money for war, there is money for the poor.
>
>> That makes no sense.
>
> We’ll see…
>
>> Our first need is a place to live free without being killed.
>
> That hasnt been a problem for a hell of a long time now.
>
> The US didnt have to get involved in WW1 or WW2 or the
> Cold War or Vietnam or Korea or anything since on that basis.
>
>> If you are in the desert and have enough water to keep one person
>> alive for the whole journey or two people to die but die two days before
>> you get more water. Do you split the water and both die or would you
>> decide on which will likely make it and let them have the water?
>
> Irrelevant question. The US has never ever been in that situation.
>
>> Now do you protect the NATION or do you split the funds
>> and give to the poor while the enemy kills you?
>
> There is no enemy that will kill anyone if the poor get given half of the money.

No one is stopping you and the other Liberals from giving half that
money to the poor, all you need to do is lower your taxes so that you
can keep and spend that money how you like.

Ain’t America great?

These people think I’m Bizarre and Obama is normal?

On 1/27/2010 9:34 PM, BDK wrote:
> In article ,
> Then-Destroy-Everything@&#$?%Talk-n-dog.com says…
>> Obama would rather be a great one term President
>> >>OR<> Socialism is the only path to greatness
>>
>>
>> Obama has said that he would rather be a great one term President rather
>> than a mediocre two term president.
>>
>> The Problem is that Obama would have to work really hard just to be
>> mediocre. The real problem is that “you” have to be able to understand
>> that Obama speaks Cryptically and if you can’t decrypt Obama’s messages
>> then you might as well not listen to him at all.
>>
>> By saying that he would rather do one term great…
>>
>> *OBAMA IS TELLING YOU THAT THE PROGRESSIVE-SOCIALISM* *HE BELIEVES* *IN*
>> *WILL* *BE WHAT MAKES HIM GREAT*
>>
>> Obama will follow his own beliefs and that will make him great and he
>> won’t stray from that course. Obama thinks it’s better to Keep on his
>> path to SOCIALISM and only get one term…. According to Obama, Obama’s
>> greatness comes from Socialism and Obama is counting on the world and
>> America rejoicing and remembering him for his GLORIOUS
>> Progressive-Socialist pursuits.
>>
>> Two terms and not getting any Socialist policy would be worse than one
>> term where he can get some Socialist policies to be listed into the
>> history books, even if Obama is run out of office amidst rock bottom
>> approval numbers like Lyndon Johnson.
>>
>> To say it simply, Obama is a Progressive-Socialist and Obama thinks he
>> can never reach greatness unless he forces his Socialism onto you….
>>
>> *Obama’s idea of success is you being forced into Socialism*
>>
>> Don’t expect any change in Obama’s pursuits, just the rhetoric and scams
>> that he uses to try to get you to the Socialism that he knows will make
>> him great. Obama is a zealot with a one track mind(a one trick pony), as
>> dangerous as any zealot and more so since he is President.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _____________________is a hell of a drug, isn’t it?
>
> One of your more bizarre posts, and that’s saying something.

And it was all 100% correct wasn’t it?

Didn’t someone in the audience call Obama a liar again, how often does
that need to happen before you, start to “get it”?

Obama told you he was going full speed ahead down the Road to Socialism
and like “Thelma and Louise” going to ride this over the cliff.

It boils down to what is best for you, and what is best for Obama.
They’re different, and Obama is concentrating on himself.

Obama is like a King that raises taxes to support his own opulence.

Obama would rather be a great one term President
>>OR<<
Socialism is the only path to greatness

Obama has said that he would rather be a great one term President rather
than a mediocre two term president.

The Problem is that Obama would have to work really hard just to be
mediocre. The real problem is that "you" have to be able to understand
that Obama speaks Cryptically and if you can't decrypt Obama's messages
then you might as well not listen to him at all.

By saying that he would rather do one term great…

*OBAMA IS TELLING YOU THAT THE PROGRESSIVE-SOCIALISM* *HE BELIEVES* *IN*
*WILL* *BE WHAT MAKES HIM GREAT*

Obama will follow his own beliefs and that will make him great and he
won't stray from that course. Obama thinks it's better to Keep on his
path to SOCIALISM and only get one term…. According to Obama, Obama's
greatness comes from Socialism and Obama is counting on the world and
America rejoicing and remembering him for his GLORIOUS
Progressive-Socialist pursuits.

Two terms and not getting any Socialist policy would be worse than one
term where he can get some Socialist policies to be listed into the
history books, even if Obama is run out of office amidst rock bottom
approval numbers like Lyndon Johnson.

To say it simply, Obama is a Progressive-Socialist and Obama think he
can never reach greatness unless he forces his Socialism onto you….

*Obama's success is you being forced into Socialism*

Don't expect any change in Obama's pursuits, just the rhetoric and scams
that he uses to try to get you to the Socialism that he knows will make
him great. Obama is a zealot with a one track mind(a one trick pony), as
dangerous as any zealot and more so since he is President.

On 1/27/2010 4:51 AM, Cliff wrote:
> http://dagblog.com/humor-satire/tea-party-threatened-capitalist-menace-3090
> “Tea Party Threatened by Capitalist Menace”
> [
> The Tea Party, a potent collection of dyspeptic right-wing populist groups, was
> on the verge of national conquest. Having defeated a Republican candidate in a
> New York House election and a Democratic candidate in the Massachusetts Senate
> election, it seemed that there was no stopping this crew of tax-rejecting,
> socialist-hating, health-care-not-wanting defenders of the Constitution and all
> that is good in America.
>
> But on the eve of triumph, the Tea Party's first ever national convention is
> collapsing in acrimony, having been sabotaged by a devious Capitalist
> conspiracy. According to news reports ........
> ......
> ]

The tea party is all local, a National “chapter” would defeat the
purpose of the tea party movement, it started with the people and
doesn’t need one office or leader…. Think like Al Qaeda and the many
cells that are NOT connected, No one can control all the cells that are
set up, in this case for political means to represent the people. With
the tea parties “NOT using one voice” you can’t corrupt or hijack the
movement. If you go the wrong way after hijacking one cell then the
people will quit when they are disenfranchised and will just gravitate
to the next cell that pops up.

The point is to NOT have candidates from a party but to select from
others candidates, because when you have a party and people organizing
it from a central point then you have people selecting candidates for
their reason and NOT the peoples reasons. Once someone sets up structure
to rise through to become a politician, then the tea parties will be
corruptible but since being in or head of a tea party group gets you
nothing then you can offer nothing to get people to do your bidding.

If someone actually tries to start a National chapter to a tea party
it’s an oxymoron and and destined to fail, all it means is that they
don’t understand the tea party movement.

There is no “National” in the tea party movement.

If you are tea party then you don’t want a National chapter like the
other parties have, the downfall of the other parties is that they have
a “leader and structure” and that leads to cronyism and back room deals.

*To all tea parties* :
Don’t collect and align outside of your States keep it States Rights and
when it comes to a National leader the only one is really the President
so the need to become a member of a National group is near ZERO unless
you want to be corrupted to force you all to a will other than the will
of the people.

On 1/26/2010 1:35 AM, Dänk 1010011010 wrote:
> On Jan 24, 7:41 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>> On 1/24/2010 4:27 PM, mani deli wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Jan 2010 08:56:25 GMT, Michael Coburn
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> It is a real wake up call for the Democratic party to get off its
>>>> defensive a&#$?%s and come up with a true middle class agenda. “Its the
>>>> economy stupid”. Time to roll.
>>
>>> I hope you are right. However I think they will roll over. We will
>>> see.
>>
>> Democrats could seize the day… all they need is to propose a National
>> Sales Tax and removal of the Income tax Amendment and the IRS all in one
>> amendment.
>>
>> That would fix the economic flat line, and get the Democrats out of the
>> dog house.
>
> A national sales tax would also give the federal government the right
> to enter your home and inspect your possessions to make sure the tax
> has been paid. Would you prefer this scenario to an audit of your
> income tax returns?

Amendment 9 says you’re wrong. A tax won’t over ride our other “rights”
the sales tax enforcement would be subject to the constitution and the
rights of the people, and hopefully more so than the IRS that controls
all your income and information and is out of control and threatens to
ruin you and then confiscates without a warrant.

*Amendment IX*
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The government won’t be given a right/power that extends over the
peoples rights.

Besides the sales tax is *collected by the seller* NOT THE BUYER and
they will only be “stores” since the tax should only be on “new” items
sold by businesses. *States have sales tax already* and they can’t
simply bust down your door to catch your tax evasions, in fact there is
far less government intrusion into the average resident in a “sales tax
only” State than there is with State and Federal income tax.

That change to sales rather than income tax in it’s self does what the
Democrats want. It creates a market that is environmentally friendly, it
means that fixing things and reusing is more profitable.

The shift from consuming to saving money and “using up” items rather
than just buying another and filling dumps with unwanted consumer junk,
that change would be for the better. A switch to only Federal sales tax
would be *more GREEN than any* “cap and trade tax” that the Socialists
like Obama want. The reason that Socialists don’t like a sales tax is
that it is less controlling and defeats their attempt to redistribute
wealth since they can’t keep track and control who is wealthy.

*THE SALES TAX IS THE GREEN TAX*

*INCOME TAX IS THE SOCIALIST CONTROL TAX*

On 1/24/2010 11:15 AM, Patriot Games wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 04:15:03 -0800 (PST), climber
> wrote:
>> Would someone explain how our economy will not continue to decline?
>> What products do we have to sell globally?
>
> We have plenty of products. However, where we used to make them
> ourselves and keep most of the profit we now pay someone else to do it
> and give away most of the profit.
>
>> How will the unemployment rate decline when
>> government brings
>> in appx. 1 million legal worker immigrants a year?
>
> The ONLY significant event on the horizon that will impact
> unemployment is the Baby Boomers (80 million) retiring over the next
> 20-25 years. They will all retire (decreasing unemployment base),
> most of them will get sick (increasing employment) and then die
> (decreasing unemployment base).
>
> In the short term the ONLY event that can decrease unemployment is an
> increase in consumers, which is not gonna happen in numbers that put
> us back to where we were before the Buckwheat Depression.
>
>> How do we stop social decay?
>
> Cut it out of society like the cancer that it is.

Today’s Liberals plan to buy it out of existence. The problem is that
they are extorting and bribing each other to get rid of the social
decay, other than being a Paradox it just sounds dumb too.

On 1/21/2010 7:14 PM, Fred B. Brown wrote:
>
> “Beam Me Up Scotty” wrote in
> message news:4b58659f$0$10358$ec3e2dad@&#$?%unlimited.usenetmonster.com…
>> On 1/21/2010 8:45 AM, Fred B. Brown wrote:
>>> Updated January 20, 2010
>>> By Gene J. Koprowski
>>>
>>> – FOXNews.com
>>>
>>>
>>> The world’s most famous climate change expert is in the midst of a
>>> massive controversy, as the leading environmental science institute he
>>> heads scrambled to explain data it promulgated for a U.N. report.
>>>
>>> An oft-cited report by the U.N.’s IPCC panel that the Himalayan glaciers
>>> will melt by 2035 may soon be retracted.
>>>
>>> The world’s most famous climate change expert is at the center of a
>>> massive controversy as the leading environmental science institute he
>>> heads scrambled to explain its assertion that the Himalayan glaciers
>>> will melt completely in 25 years.
>>>
>>> Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
>>> Change (IPCC) and director general of the Energy and Resources Institute
>>> (TERI) in New Dehli, India, said this week that the U.N. body was
>>> studying how its 2007 report to the United Nations derived information
>>> that led to its famous conclusion: that the glaciers will melt by 2035.
>>>
>>> Today, the IPCC issued a statement offering regret for the poorly vetted
>>> statements. “The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret
>>> the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures,” the statement
>>> says, though it goes short of issuing a full retraction or reprinting
>>> the report.
>>>
>>> Pachauri told Reuters on Monday that the group was looking into the
>>> issue, and planned to “take a position on it in the next two or three
>>> days.”
>>>
>>> The IPCC’s 2007 report, simply titled AR4, claimed that “glaciers in the
>>> Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world, and
>>> if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by
>>> the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming
>>> at the current rate.”
>>>
>>> Contacted by FoxNews.com at TERI, officials would not respond to a
>>> request for additional comment. IPCC is expected to withdraw the
>>> report’s claim eventually.
>>>
>>> Read the rest at:
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/20/panels-glacier-disaster-claims-melting-away/?test=latestnews
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> News ABC, NBC and CBS don’t report on. Jay Leno and Conan O’Brien
>>>
>>> are more important.
>>
>> I just asked someone here a few weeks ago, “Where did all the water go”
>> if all these Glaciers around the planet have melted by 50%, according
>> to Al Gore it would have raised the Oceans by half of the 21 feet he
>> predicted.
>>
>> Thus far the Oceans have risen how much?
>>
>> Saying that the Glaciers are melted and will be gone soon was an obvious
>> lie.
>>
>> Either that, or all that water went to outer space.
>>

Aliens… stole it???? I was jesting.

I realize that it’s not normally sucked into space.

> Water does not evaporate into space, the earth has had the same
> amount of water for billions of years in one form or another. Ice,
> snow or just plain water.

The point being that the Al Gore numbers don’t add up.

How much melting and how much sea level rise?

test

Green shoots >>OR<< Thelma and Louise over the cliff

The progressive-Socialist zealots see green shoots and the rest of us
see the Cliff coming up at 60mph….

The Progressives think this is a message they need to go faster and
force us into their agenda and they see this as a call to arms

*be very concerned*

While most NORMAL Americans see this as a message that we need to slow
the pace to bankruptcy.

Is it funny, sad or scary that Progressives are so delusional?

–

On 1/19/2010 10:58 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:52:06 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, I look forward to the chance to waste even more of the
>> governments time and money that they stole from you.
>
> How can you ‘Steal” what is legally, morally, ethically, and
> constitutinally permissable?

By expanding to what is not Constitutional.

That is stealing(FRAUD) and that is ethically and morally wrong.

You’re one who thinks Stealing is OK as long as when you leave the BANK
you just jacked and shot the teller, you hand the money to widows and
orphans.

You feel it’s OK and you can’t see that Logically, you just created
mayhem and problems down the line by those actions. Kids that have no
mother(the teller) an insurance company that insured against Robbery and
or life insurance that was a loss and the lawyers that will sue the
bank…. and on and on. How many people will lose jobs and lose raises
and parents and money and their life made more tenuous, all just to help
those widows and orphans, when you could have done less but done it legally.

Such is Liberalism, they look at Social Justice as the cure when it
actually causes more problem than it solves. The basics of Social
justice is that you ignore EQUAL JUSTICE and do what is “right” and by
doing that you fall into the trap that you believe you aren’t breaking
any laws or violating the constitution its self, but you are.

I realize that you think you have broken no Constitutional limits by
taxing and spending on anything you want…. but look at the
constitution and read Article 1 Section 8.

While you think its the “right” thing to do(like robbing a bank to give
to widows and orphans) you’ll see that the powers to spend on anything
they want, is NOT in the constitution and there is a reason for the
congress NOT having unlimited power or unlimited power to spend.

On 1/20/2010 8:41 AM, vict0r wrote:
> Dionysus wrote:
>> FROM DETROIT NEWS AND AP
>>
>> HEAD: Dems thrown by voters’ about-face
>>
>> SUB-HEAD: Year after party swept into power, distrust of Washington
>> remains
>>
>> Washington — The stunning Republican victory in Tuesday’s
>> Massachusetts Senate race will force Democrats to fundamentally
>> rethink the meaning of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency,
>> especially the notion that Americans want more government help in
>> matters such as obtaining health insurance.
>>
>> Scott Brown’s win in a liberal state will do more than vastly
>> complicate Obama’s bid to overhaul the U.S. health care system and
>> pass climate-change legislation. It will prompt politicians of every
>> stripe to redouble their efforts to understand voters’ anger and
>> desires ahead of the November elections for Congress, governorships
>> and state legislatures.
>> Many Americans saw the 2008 election as a repudiation of George W.
>> Bush’s presidency, with Obama as the fresh new leader promising to
>> harness the government to expand health coverage, discipline banks
>> and stimulate the moribund economy.
>>
>> But Brown’s victory over Democrat Martha Coakley suggests that many
>> voters still harbor suspicions or outright resentment of the federal
>> government, no matter who’s in charge.
>>
>> Conservatives, perhaps sensing the mood better than liberals, have
>> accused Obama of big-brotherism and even socialism as he pushes his
>> health plan and pours billions of dollars into economic stimulus
>> programs.
>> The president rightly notes that he campaigned precisely on those
>> issues. But that’s small comfort to nervous and perplexed Democratic
>> lawmakers who now expect stiff anti-incumbent winds in November and
>> heightened GOP attacks against “big government.”
>>
>> Even the smartest political consultants may need time to sort out
>> Tuesday’s lessons.
>>
>> American voters rejected Republican control in the 2006 congressional
>> elections and the 2008 presidential election. Democrats widely
>> assumed that a top priority, and a winning political issue, was to
>> make health insurance more accessible and competitive.
>>
>> But now, just 14 months later, voters are snarling at the Democrats
>> they put in charge, leaving them to wonder how to expand services
>> without invoking public wrath.
>>
>> John Triolo, a Massachusetts independent who voted for Obama in 2008
>> and for Brown on Tuesday, exemplified the confusing message.
>>
>> “I voted for Obama because I wanted change,” said Triolo, 38, a sales
>> manager from Fitchburg, Mass. “I wanted change, I thought he’d bring
>> it to us, but I just don’t like the direction that he’s heading.”
>>
>> Everyone should have health coverage, Triolo said, “but I think we
>> should take the time to look at it, but not ram it down our throat.”
>>
>> Karla Bunch, a 49-year-old teacher who also voted for Brown in
>> Fitchburg, said, “It’s time for the country, for the taxpayers, to
>> take back their money.”
>> *******************
>> Hear, hear! Take back their country, too.
>>
>> “Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up.” –Da Lyin’ Prick
>>
>> “The American dream is not an entitlement.” –Author Unknown
>>
>> “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we
>> should soon want bread.”–Thomas Jefferson
>>
>> No surrender!
>>
>> Dionysus
>
>
> This morning the spin from the Left and the Media (same thing) is that no
> exit polling was done in MA so we “don’t really know” why the voters voted
> how they did.
>
> Seriously.
>
> I mean Brown blared it from the highest mountain top that he would vote
> against Obamacare, and likewise “Marcia” Coakley said she would vote for it.
> And here we are in MA were all a Dem candidate has to do to be elected is
> not fall down too much during the campaign, yet the GOP Brown crushed her.
>
> But hey, we “don’t really know” what he voters were thinking now do we?

Good call…. the Progressive candidate should have been campaigning in
the bars like Kennedy did and then stumbled out and fallen face-first
onto the dog-pile by the fire hydrant.

Her problem was that she just couldn’t hold her Liquor like Teddy.

OH….. and only insane Leftists want Obamacare.

On 1/20/2010 8:59 AM, Möbius Pretzel wrote:
> International Hearings Begin On “Falsified” Swine Flu Pandemic
>
> The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a 47 nation body
> encompassing democratically elected members of parliament, has begun
> hearings to investigate whether the H1N1 swine flu pandemic was
> falsified or exaggerated in an attempt to profit from vaccine sales.
>
> http://www.prisonplanet.com/international-hearings-begin-on-falsified-swine-flu-pandemic.html

It was a payoff by Leftists to drug companies to go along with the
American Socialized health care. The USA’s Leftist politicians created
the hoax just like they created the Global Warming hoax and spread it
via the UN. This Swine flue panic was also spread by the Socialists in
the White House and then precipitated to the UN to help sell it.

The Sleazy Leftists in power in America have a working example, the
Global Warming scare and they know you can get a lot done by hiding what
you are doing beneath a crisis real or made up.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that
is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -
Rahm Emanuel -

On 1/19/2010 7:26 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:09:15 -0800, pyotr filipivich
> wrote:
>
>>> Mao Ts Tung was a rightwinger?…..dear Crom…what a f&#$?%g waste of
>>> skin.
>>
>> OTOH, tells you how far left he’d gone.
>
> Mao’s economics was “left”
>
> His politics was rightwing (conservative)

Those rightwingers that start forced collective farms sure tick me off too.

–

On 1/19/2010 4:04 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jan 19, 12:12 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>> On 1/19/2010 9:58 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 9:42 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>>>> Does the tide of globalization automatically lift all boats?
>>
>>>> Yes.
>>
>>> that’s why there are more starving people world wide then ever,
>>> correct?
>>
>> Global Socialism will kill more people than the average human can conceive.
>>
>> Look at where Haiti would be if they were only depending on the
>> Socialist Nations of this world. Cuba a few hundred miles away can’t do
>> anything. The survivors would die of disease and lack of food and water.
>
> i have posted empirical evidence to you of the contrary many times,
> but you keep looking at one extreme, and not the other. its why i
> consider you a crank.

China really jumped in didn’t they and the Hugo Chavez was a real help….

On 1/19/2010 4:54 PM, Major Debacle wrote:
> Witziges Rätsel wrote:
>> “Major Debacle” wrote in message
>> news:hj57i1$8pi$1@&#$?%news.eternal-september.org…

>>> Or do you believe that govt has no business telling people
>>> how to spend their money?

The government may be telling, *I’m just not listening* .

On 1/19/2010 7:31 PM, Witziges Rätsel wrote:
> “Major Debacle” wrote in message
> news:hj57i1$8pi$1@&#$?%news.eternal-september.org…
>>
>> Or do you believe that govt has no business telling people
>> how to spend their money?
>>
> Doesn’t a government of the people spend its own money any way it wants.

NO…

The government only has powers that are in the constitution.

On 1/19/2010 1:30 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Poetic Justice” wrote in message
> news:jLm5n.165$3n2.62@&#$?%newsfe01.iad…
>> On 1/18/2010 10:22 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> Poetic Justice wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Poetic Justice wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Poetic Justice wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Poetic Justice wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Poetic Justice wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bret Cahill wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you agree the majority gets to decide taxation issues?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Under the constitutional restraints.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And those constitutional restraints are determined by the
>>>>>>>>>>> majority.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> yet you are expanding the taxes beyond the constitution.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Another lie.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain your constitutional ability to tax/force me to buy
>>>>>>>> health care?
>>>
>>>>>>> That hasnt happened yet.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Explain how you tax peoples “trade of time for money” as income.
>>>
>>>>>>> Covered by the same provision that allows the govt to tax.
>>>
>>>>>> Sorry but no,
>>>
>>>>> Fraid so. Thats what the supremes think and they are what matters
>>>>> on that.
>>>
>>>>> You disagree with them ? You are always free to set
>>>>> fire to yourself outside the supreme court or sumfin.
>>>
>>>>>> the Congress is allowed to tax income, an even trade
>>>>>> with no gain, has no profit and therefore no income to tax.
>>>
>>>>> The constitution doesnt just allow the taxation of profit, stupid.
>>>
>>>>>>>> If you are worth $10 for an hour of work then you made
>>>>>>>> an even trade of $10 for that hour of your life, where was
>>>>>>>> the income or profit that is called income for you to tax?????
>>>
>>>>>>> The constitution doesnt just allow the taxation of income, stupid.
>>>
>>>>>> In fact they had to add the wording in an amendment to allow the
>>>>>> taxing of “INCOME”
>>>
>>>>> They already had the capacity to tax other than income before that,
>>>>> stupid.
>>>
>>>>>> So the ability to tax is limited to those type of taxes enumerated
>>>>>> in the constitution.
>>>
>>>>> And that doesnt just include income and profit, stupid.
>>>
>>>>> Anyway, whatever you pig ignorantly claim, the supremes clearly
>>>>> dont agree with
>>>>> your stupid pig ignorant claim, so you get to like that or lump it
>>>>> or go to jail etc.
>>>
>>>> Explain what tax will be used to tax an even swap of
>>>> one hour of my life for an agreed upon value of dollars?
>>>
>>> They’re taxing your labor, stupid.
>>
>> Labor is taxable, that means when you make coffee for yourself then you
>> are taxed for that labor?
>>
>>>> There is no income, there is no National excise on labor.
>>>
>>> Didnt say anything about excise.
>>
>> The tax is on INCOME which comes from profit and if you have no profit,
>> there is no income.
>>
>> In an equal trade, there is no profit and therefore no income and
>> nothing to tax.
>>
>> If I am willing to help you move a table and in kind you agree to help
>> me move a table, was there a “profit”?
>>
>> If there is no profit there is no income to tax, otherwise you would be
>> forced by the IRS to pay a tax on the labor you received and so would
>> your friend that you help.
>>
>> Which tax is used to tax labor?
>>
>
> Here is the greatest display of ignorance I have ever seen on these pages!

You avoided the answer with that, personal attack….
Somehow you forgot to explain your statements.

On 1/19/2010 1:30 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 11:05:14 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/19/2010 9:11 AM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:56 -0800, Gunner Asch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You have again admitted that you are, but hate, being called a Leftard.
>>>> “progressive” really doesnt have the same impact, does it?
>>>
>>> Considering the historical excellence that “liberalism” and
>>> “progressive” policies contributed to making American the greatest,
>>> AND that you can’t list any from a conservative political
>>> standpoint–the impact you feel is that boot against your a&#$?%s.
>>
>> Like Prohibition and the Federal Reserve and Income tax? –
>
> You stupid f&#$?%k
>
> You think the WCTU was a liberal organizaton?
>
> Income tax was necessary, proper, ethical, moral and legal

Actually they had to change the constitution, and there is still a
question of if it was done legally.

Ethically, they said there would be no income tax on personal income
just on corporations.

It’s NOT moral to steal.

–

On 1/19/2010 9:58 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jan 18, 9:42 pm, Don Stockbauer wrote:
>> Does the tide of globalization automatically lift all boats?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> that’s why there are more starving people world wide then ever,
> correct?

Global Socialism will kill more people than the average human can conceive.

Look at where Haiti would be if they were only depending on the
Socialist Nations of this world. Cuba a few hundred miles away can’t do
anything. The survivors would die of disease and lack of food and water.

On 1/18/2010 11:29 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>> mrbawana2u wrote
>
>>>> ‘Globalization’ is actually ‘global fascism’.
>
>>>>> The controllers of global fascism accumulate wealth while they
>>>>> leave everyone else to fight over the left over scraps.
>>>>> [yawn/flush]
>
>>> I got my scraps and retired early,
>
>> Me too… Now I can dedicate my time to sending the Government a message.
>
> They just file it in the round filing cabinet under their desks, where it belongs.
>
>
You assume too much, this message is not tangible.

On 1/18/2010 11:38 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>> Free speech in China is what the government allows.
>>
>>>> The gummint doesn’t allow free speech for political ads on public
>>>> buses. See Lehman v City of Shaker Heights.
>>
>>> Cain’t have gay nekkid nazi flagburning teabagging
>>> porn on public buses either. Go figure.
>>
>> You mean those women in underwear selling cologne, aren’t porn?
>
> Only a burka isn’t porn according to the Taliban.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>

Hey I’m trying to discover why government buses have women in underwear.
I get that they might not want that in Saudi Arabia, but why is our
government trying to set sexual behavior as their job on a public bus?

If they are forced ban Church and religious material on public property,
by what right does government have any commercial material on Government
property?

On 1/19/2010 4:43 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Jan 18, 10:49 am, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2010 12:41 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 18, 7:54 am, Beam Me Up Scotty >> dog.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/2010 4:10 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Jan 16, 5:48 pm, Occam’s Razor wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:19 -0800 (PST), liberal
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 15, 4:23 pm, smor…@board.net wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:12:44 -0800 (PST), M bius Pretzel
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Paul: “US has broken with reality, sanity & rule of law;” calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for “Revolutionary changes”
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ron paul is a joke
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Always was
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ron Paul is one of the few US legislators that actually makes sense.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unlike most of the democrat and republicon traitors.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> When I read someone referring to ron paul “making sense”, I
>>>>>>>>>> immediately know that the person has little, or no command of American
>>>>>>>>>> History.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ron paul is blathering OLD, OLD discredited c&#$?%p from a century ago
>>
>>>>>>>>> Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. That scares a
>>>>>>>>> lot of people who believe America should be a
>>>>>>>>> nanny state.
>>
>>>>>>>> He wants slavery back?
>>
>>>>>> When people are forced to work to pay tax to keep the political class
>>>>>> well heeled, it’s the tax payers that are the Slaves.
>>
>>>>> You want slaves? Go to the Sudan. THOSE are slaves.
>>
>>>>> “Booooohooooo, I pay taxes so I’m a slave.
>>>>> POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRr MEEEEEEEEE! Please sir, won’t you have
>>>>> pity on the slave?”
>>
>>>> Actually I was suggesting that you are a slave, I work very hard to pay
>>>> as near zero tax as I possibly can…. I’ve doing been that since Obama
>>>> the Socialist came to power.
>>
>>> I am no man’s slave. Try telling me what to do and see what happens.
>>
>> Pay your tax and any new tax or Obama will take all you own.
>
> Surrreeeeeeeee…..
>
>>
>>> I think I’ll forward this post to the IRS and see what happens.
>>
>> Pleas do…. They are in need of help to waste their time, they have no
>> need to chase me down since there is no pot of gold at the end of this
>> rainbow. I do it all within the law….
>>
>> I’m also too small of a fish to be a good “example” and railroading me
>> will do nothing but cost the IRS and you money so I urge you to waste
>> your time and the IRS’s time and money, I’m loving it.
>>
>> This is even better than just paying as little as possible, I also get
>> to waste the money that you paid in…. that’s like a bonus.
>
> Well, it’s just an e-mail to me, so it’ll take like, 30 seconds of my
> time….why not?

Thanks, I look forward to the chance to waste even more of the
governments time and money that they stole from you.

by the way, You are bearing false witness and that may mean they’ll turn
On yoU and do some LOOKing into you, I’LL PLANt that morsel in their
ear when THEy come for me…. that will be yet anOTHER chance to wasTe
their time and your money, this could be my perfect trifectA!

my plan haS been to starve the government of money and you are, as marx
said it “a useful idiot” and i appreciate the help doing it, which by
the way maKes you a co conspirator In the effort and i’ll laugh hardily
while Slipping up and accidentally implicating you in this huge
conspiracy against the government.

IHAVEALSOADDEDCODEINTOTHISPOSTTOMAKEYOULOOKEVENMOREINVOLVEDANDITWILLAPPEARTHATYOUAREASECRETCELLINTHEMOVEMENTANDYOUAREINFACTHELPINGME.

YOUDUMBSHIT

On 1/19/2010 12:58 AM, Monsieur Turtoni wrote:
>>> It’s not very well written but bascially i’m saying that “Selfishness”
>>> is at root of skepticism.

Survival is at the roots of skepticism.

–

On 1/19/2010 3:49 AM, Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:59:27 -0700, robert bowman
> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>> At any rate, it’s prosletyzing just as the boxes of plaster at Home
>>> Depot with the xtian fish. No other option was available so I bought
>>> at Lowes.
>>
>> You better stay out of In-N-Out burger joints — they’ve got bible
>> references on most of their stuff.
>
> Thanks for the warning. Don’t like their fries anyhow…
>

I suggest that you do all your business with the government, they don’t
allow that Christian symbolism on government property. You need to stay
out of all those hospitals with names of Saints on them too.
–

On 1/19/2010 7:49 AM, slate_leeper wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:13:22 -0800 (PST), “editor@&#$?%netpath.net”
> wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. The biggest tea party takes place tomorrow PRIVATELY – in
>> voting booths all over Massachusetts in a Senate race that’s become a
>> tossup only due to it becoming a referendum on Obama.
>> Boston is becoming Obama’s Stalingrad.
>>
>> http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com – your source for hard-to-find stuff!
>
>
>
> The subject line of this thread tells you how biased the story is
> without even having to read it.

Win or lose the message has been sent.
–

>> On Jan 17, 11:03 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> ………..Qualifying piffle snipped…………. then tell me why the
>>> john galts have flocked to china…….

even a hint of Capitalism can create incentive, whereas all the
Socialism in the world will still just create mediocrity.–

On 1/19/2010 9:00 AM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 04:59:30 -0500, Strabo
> wrote:
>
>> Obama has three jobs. The first is to sell Democratic idealism and
>> promote a Marxist fervor. 2
>
>
> C’mon
>
> Don’t you guys ever get tired of using those terms over and over as IF
> they were credible?
>
> social programs do not constitute “socialism”
>
They also aren’t constitutional….

Point out the place where the Congress is given the power to spend money
on “the people”

On 1/19/2010 9:11 AM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 22:25:56 -0800, Gunner Asch
> wrote:
>
>> You have again admitted that you are, but hate, being called a Leftard.
>> “progressive” really doesnt have the same impact, does it?
>
> Considering the historical excellence that “liberalism” and
> “progressive” policies contributed to making American the greatest,
> AND that you can’t list any from a conservative political
> standpoint–the impact you feel is that boot against your a&#$?%s.

Like Prohibition and the Federal Reserve and Income tax? –

On 1/18/2010 9:27 PM, mrbawana2u wrote:
>> ‘Globalization’ is actually ‘global fascism’.
>> > The controllers of global fascism accumulate wealth while they leave
>> > everyone else to fight over the left over scraps.
>> >[yawn/flush]
> I got my scraps and retired early,

Me too… Now I can dedicate my time to sending the Government a message.

On 1/18/2010 4:30 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 13:08:42 -0800 (PST), Siobhan Medeiros
> wrote:
>
>> Only a moron would have to have health care “forced” onto them.
>
> Only a moron wouldn’t recognize that using that as an argument
> automatically makes him a moron.
>
> He’s merely puking up what townhall, faux and Limpballs tells him
>
as usual the Liberals are out to lunch, the problem is “government” is
being force on you, the health care is just incidental…. The
government has myriad of things they try to force on us. The root of the
problem is Government.

On 1/18/2010 4:35 PM, pyjamarama wrote:
> On Jan 18, 1:23 pm, smor…@board.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 14:11:42 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>
>> wrote:
>>>> Congress was republican
>>
>>> Yes, yes it was….
>>
>>> And it was Clinton that enforced laws in a way that coerced banks to
>>> make bad loans.
>>
>>> It was Clinton that had Franklin Reins appointed to Fanny Mae and
>>> Democrats that pushed for Fannie to buy loans with lower credit
>>> requirements.
>>
>> but only to qualified buyers

Qualified to the new lower Qualifications….

If you make the qualification be that they are breathing, you can use
those same slimy claims and it is still the risky loans that caused the
problems and when it starts that money was leveraged as the loans were
combined into investments and spread the failure beyond Fannie and
Freddie because they bought and passed those loans on.

Without Fannie and Freddie buying and selling risky loans the banks
would have been less willing to make and hold those bad loans and the
Banks making them would have been the extent of the failure.

Fannie and Freddie were like Typhoid Mary, spreading the death all
around and then when the s&#$?%t hit the fan more than those banks and
Fanny and Freddie went down the toilet.

On 1/18/2010 12:31 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:42:35 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>> Yet the people supposed to punish the people that created this crash,
>> are the people that created the crash. Congress was the culprit. Big
>> government was the problem.
>
>
> Congress was republican
>

Yes, yes it was….

And it was Clinton that enforced laws in a way that coerced banks to
make bad loans.

It was Clinton that had Franklin Reins appointed to Fanny Mae and
Democrats that pushed for Fannie to buy loans with lower credit
requirements.

It was democrats that stopped the Republicans from fixing their mess.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

On 1/18/2010 12:32 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:54:36 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/18/2010 4:10 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>
>
>>> “Booooohooooo, I pay taxes so I’m a slave.
>>> POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRr MEEEEEEEEE! Please sir, won’t you have
>>> pity on the slave?”
>>
>>
>> Actually I was suggesting that you are a slave, I work very hard to pay
>> as near zero tax as I possibly can…. I’ve doing been that since Obama
>> the Socialist came to power.
>
> So you’re saying that you have nothing to whine about.
>
That’s why I wasn’t whining. I also won’t buy into Obama care, so I
guess he will have to come arrest me.

On 1/18/2010 12:33 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:06:27 -0500, “Sid9″ wrote:
>
>
>
>> Today’s ” Libertarians” are more like anarchists
>>
>
> TOday’s so-called loonytarians have absolutely no discernable
> knowledge of american history and what their failed beliefs caused.

Is this where the blind are leading the deaf and dumb?

You sure sound like it.

On 1/18/2010 12:35 PM, smorgas@&#$?%board.net wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:30:45 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, put the same guys in who started this mess to begin with!
>>
>> Sub prime loans were a Democrat creation to help the poor.
>>
>> How’s that working out for the poor?
>
> How could they be
>

Try this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314

> from 1994 to 2006—Congress was controlled by Republicans
>
> Oversight of financial institutions, therefore, was controlled by
> republicans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

>
> The Presidency, except for clintons years, were all republican since
> 1980
>

And guess who lost for not fighting against the Democrats hard enough,
but then look at getting health care and consider that Democrats can’t
be stopped by Republicans in a simple vote.

Yet Democrats are finding it difficult to force health care onto us.

> Once again your lying bullshit is easily countered.
>

On 1/18/2010 12:37 PM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Jan 18, 8:30 am, Beam Me Up Scotty dog.com> wrote:
>> On 1/18/2010 3:44 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 11:19 am, znuybv wrote:
>>>> On Jan 15, 11:12 am, M bius Pretzel
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Ron Paul: “US has broken with reality, sanity & rule of law;” calls
>>>>> for “Revolutionary changes”
>>
>>>>> *hyperlinks and video live at source*
>>
>>>>> Ron Paul made the following 4-minute speech on the House floor
>>>>> admonishing the American public to counter Orwellian conditions in the
>>>>> US with revolutionary thinking, and to prepare for revolutionary
>>>>> changes in the not-to-distant future.
>>
>>>>> With the implosion of the US economy, the beginning of international
>>>>> recognition that US wars are obviously unlawful while the US rejects
>>>>> peace offers from Iran to escalate rhetoric to add that country to the
>>>>> list we madly attack, US refusal to prosecute or end obvious torture,
>>>>> stripping rights and torturing US citizens on the flimsiest of claims,
>>>>> and more, Congressman Paul is right.
>>
>>>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m…
>>
>>>> If you want change and hope; VOTE GOP!
>>
>>> Yeah, put the same guys in who started this mess to begin with!
>>
>> Sub prime loans were a Democrat creation to help the poor.
>>
>> How’s that working out for the poor?
>
> Bullshit. The whole CRA-caused-the-financial-crisis thing has been
> thoroghly discredited. 80% of the banks needing bailouts weren’t
> covered by the CRA, and banks that were covered by the CRA fared
> better than those that weren’t.
>

At the center of it all is Fannie and Freddie and they buy and sell 70%
of all residential loans.

The Commercial loans aren’t failing yet…. it is all about the risk of
the loans to the poor in the residential markets, if Fannie and Freddie
hadn’t been buying risky loans and pushed to do so by Congress and
Clinton’s attorney General, then Banks wouldn’t have been making and
selling risky loans to Fannie/Freddie under the threat of government law
suits and retribution.

> So much for that piece of rightard revisionist history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1T2Y314

On 1/18/2010 11:15 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article ,
> Mr.B1ack wrote:
>
>> “vict0r” wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> OK to Cheat To Keep Brown From Winning In Massachusetts
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB3j9fpTKkk
>>

*Liberal Commandments*
1. Thou shalt always be a victim.

2. Keep thy Brother in the comfort zone, that which makes him happy.

3. *Use any means possible to promote the Liberal social agenda* .

4. Do not covet Success and achievement, strive for mediocrity.

5. Show your enemy your Bluster, before whining like a child.

6. Government is the only religion of man, serve no other cause.

7. Tithe all you have “and will have” to our cause, for that which is
not spent by government, will come back to you.

8. Believe in unconditional Peace and Love, so then shall you become
self important and omnipotent.

9. The truth of everything is that which you make it.

10. Life is above all else, until it would interfere with a Liberals choice.

On 1/18/2010 1:15 AM, Shrikeback wrote:
> On Jan 17, 1:30 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> Free speech in China is what the government allows.
>>
>> The gummint doesn’t allow free speech for political ads on public
>> buses. See Lehman v City of Shaker Heights.
>
> Cain’t have gay nekkid nazi flagburning teabagging
> porn on public buses either. Go figure.

You mean those women in underwear selling cologne, aren’t porn?

On 1/18/2010 3:44 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Jan 15, 11:19 am, znuybv wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 11:12 am, Möbius Pretzel
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ron Paul: “US has broken with reality, sanity & rule of law;” calls
>>> for “Revolutionary changes”
>>
>>> *hyperlinks and video live at source*
>>
>>> Ron Paul made the following 4-minute speech on the House floor
>>> admonishing the American public to counter Orwellian conditions in the
>>> US with “revolutionary thinking,” and to prepare for “revolutionary
>>> changes in the not-to-distant future.”
>>
>>> With the implosion of the US economy, the beginning of international
>>> recognition that US wars are obviously unlawful while the US rejects
>>> peace offers from Iran to escalate rhetoric to add that country to the
>>> list we madly attack, US refusal to prosecute or end obvious torture,
>>> stripping rights and torturing US citizens on the flimsiest of claims,
>>> and more, Congressman Paul is right.
>>
>>> http://www.examiner.com/x-18425-LA-County-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2010m…
>>
>> If you want change and hope; VOTE GOP!
>
> Yeah, put the same guys in who started this mess to begin with!

Sub prime loans were a Democrat creation to help the poor.

How’s that working out for the poor?

On 1/18/2010 4:10 AM, Siobhan Medeiros wrote:
> On Jan 16, 5:48 pm, Occam’s Razor wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:12:19 -0800 (PST), liberal
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 15, 4:23 pm, smor…@board.net wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 11:12:44 -0800 (PST), M bius Pretzel
>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ron Paul: “US has broken with reality, sanity & rule of law;” calls
>>>>>>>>> for “Revolutionary changes”
>>
>>>>>>>> Ron paul is a joke
>>
>>>>>>>> Always was
>>
>>>>>>> Ron Paul is one of the few US legislators that actually makes sense.
>>>>>>> Unlike most of the democrat and republicon traitors.
>>
>>>>>> When I read someone referring to ron paul “making sense”, I
>>>>>> immediately know that the person has little, or no command of American
>>>>>> History.
>>
>>>>>> Ron paul is blathering OLD, OLD discredited c&#$?%p from a century ago
>>
>>>>> Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. That scares a
>>>>> lot of people who believe America should be a
>>>>> nanny state.
>>
>>>> He wants slavery back?
>>
>> When people are forced to work to pay tax to keep the political class
>> well heeled, it’s the tax payers that are the Slaves.
>
> You want slaves? Go to the Sudan. THOSE are slaves.
>
> “Booooohooooo, I pay taxes so I’m a slave.
> POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRr MEEEEEEEEE! Please sir, won’t you have
> pity on the slave?”

Actually I was suggesting that you are a slave, I work very hard to pay
as near zero tax as I possibly can…. I’ve doing been that since Obama
the Socialist came to power.

> On Jan 18, 6:45 am, “*Anarcissie*” wrote:
>
>> Not at all. At least the original concept of socialism
>> was entirely selfish: the workers get control of the
>> means of production and keep the profits for
>> themselves. I can’t see a trace of sacrifice in that.

Take from others to give to you…. NO nothing selfish about that.

>> In the Welfare state, which is what social democracy
>> is now about, the better-off give something to the
>> worse-off,

They did that ever since Christ was a teenager.

Your Socialism isn’t special… it’s just willing to steal from others
to support it’s generosity.

–

> On Jan 17, 10:20 am, Al wrote:

>> Latino immigrants have conservative values, but their socialist
>> expectations outweigh the values equation.

Conservative Social values or conservative economic values?

On 1/17/2010 9:38 AM, Demon Buddha wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 4:09 PM, Demon Buddha wrote:
>>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karl Marx was specifically against free trade. He called it “that
>>>> single, unconscionable freedom “. Brains Unavailable is simply wrong
>>>> on everything and I’m sick of talking to him.
>>> Marx was just another low rent hypocrite. He was, after all, a
>>> major league capitalist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn’t Marx write all Sci-Fi?
>>
>>
>> Something about what life would be like on a different planet with
>> beings that had zero drive to achieve?
>>
> I was not aware of that. DO you have a title?

“The Alien federation’s Communist Manifesto” which he shortened to “The
Communist Manifesto”

–

On 1/17/2010 10:40 AM, hal wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:13:26 -0500, “Dionysus”
> wrote:
>
>>FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES
>>
>> HEAD: Obama is killing the economy
>
> no, you stupid moron, Bush killed the economy. Obama is trying to
> save it from people like you.

Funny, you say Obama is a failure that wants to fix the economy, while I
say Obama is a success that wants to destroy the capitalist economy and
is inch by inch accomplishing the destruction of the economy.

On 1/17/2010 9:38 AM, Demon Buddha wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 4:09 PM, Demon Buddha wrote:
>>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>
>>>> Karl Marx was specifically against free trade. He called it “that
>>>> single, unconscionable freedom “. Brains Unavailable is simply wrong
>>>> on everything and I’m sick of talking to him.
>>> Marx was just another low rent hypocrite. He was, after all, a
>>> major league capitalist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Didn’t Marx write all Sci-Fi?
>>
>>
>> Something about what life would be like on a different planet with
>> beings that had zero drive to achieve?
>>
> I was not aware of that. DO you have a title?

“The Communist Manifesto”
–