OutSourcedNews-Group

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

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:
Re: Glenn Beck — “Anarchists” Are for “Total Government”

Date:
Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:54:49 -0500

From:
Poetic Justice <Poetic-Justice@&#$?%Talk-n-Dog.com>

On 3/4/2010 2:04 AM, Strabo wrote:
> Dan Clore wrote:
>> Strabo wrote:
>>> Dan Clore wrote:
>>>> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
>>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>>>>
>>>> The video can be found here: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/125837
>>>>
>>>> Transcript (about 8:50 forward — Beck is pointing to a blackboard
>>>> diagram):
>>>>
>>>> “Okay, I showed you this chart yesterday and I said, this is you,
>>>> kind of in the middle, the vast majority of people are on the
>>>> middle, conservatives are over here, progressives are over here,
>>>> and the fringe elements, and the birthers and 9/11 truthers are
>>>> over here with the progressives, and the birthers and the 9/11
>>>> truthers are over here, with the conservatives as well, but there
>>>> is also something else over, in fact, let me flip this, let me flip
>>>> this over if I can, and show you, is it on this side here, and show
>>>> you what’s on the other side here, because it’s not really right, I
>>>> was thinking about it last night, and it’s really not, it’s really
>>>> not a straight line like that, it’s more of a circle, okay, here
>>>> are the *total government* people, right here, they meet here,
>>>> you’ve got the progressives, over here, and you’ve got the
>>>> *anarchists*, and I don’t even know, the fascists, the people who
>>>> are hiding in the hills, with their Nazi signs, I don’t even know
>>>> who those people are, but here they are, they’re here, on the left
>>>> and the right, the crazy people, who don’t really like America, got
>>>> it? In this group, you have communists, like Van Jones, you have,
>>>> he’s a 9/11 truther, you have Medina, she’s not a communist, she’s
>>>> not an anarchist, she’s really more of a, uh, this is a woman
>>>> that’s running for Texas governor, but she is a 9/11, uh, truther,
>>>> or at least thinks that there are some good questions that haven’t
>>>> been answered, I agree with you, but one of them is not did George
>>>> Bush blow up the World Trade Center, here’s Alan Keyes, he’s a
>>>> birther, this guy, what is this guy’s name again, he’s a Democrat,
>>>> he’s one of the original birthers, what’s his name, Philip Berg,
>>>> he’s a Democrat, he was the first birther, or one of the first ones
>>>> [video ends].”
>>>>
>>>> (Emphasis added.)
>>>>
>>>> So: anarchist = progressive = communist = fascist = crazy = Nazi =
>>>> birther = Democrat = 9/11 truther = total government people!
>>>>
>>>> Any questions?
>>>>
>>> Beck is not a quick study but he is improving.
>>
>> I haven’t really paid much attention to him, but I can only say, if
>> this stuff represents the result of improvement, oy veh!
>>
>
> He didn’t say much about anarchists. It came up on his blackboard
> drawing of political affiliations based on an early test of
> libertarianism.
>
> Beck seems to see anarchy as a non-starter comprised of “crazy people”
> and opposite fascism and communism on his linear graph.
>
> It looked something like this…
>
> |
> Communism |
> ————Progressive———-|——Libertarian—-Anarchy
> Fascism |
> |
>
>
> So once you leave anarchy you enter minimal government or today’s
> libertarian. This was the Republic. Since the 1900s the actions of
> Progressives (Marxist/Socialist/Leninist/Stalinist) have shifted the
> US toward Socialism where Liberals and Conservatives are today.
>
> Since Progressives move away from minimal government and always talk of
> change, they are planning more government and will eventually wind
> up as either Communist or Fascist.
>
> This is much more sophisticated than his attempts to describe relative
> politics a few months ago.
>
> It’s a process of personal learning for him which he must then reconcile
> with Neocon taboos like 9/11, Obama’s birth certificate, federal
> reserve, and others.
>
>

The Federal Reserve is Progressivism….. the rest are off the charts.

The constitution diversifies power, progressives work to consolidate
power. The two are not able to co exist so the Progressives are
chipping away at the limits set by the constitution on Government power.

–

Why is America in NATO, it’s no longer a “defensive treaty” NATO is a
roving borderless army of mercenaries….. that our tax dollars pay
for. That sounds unconstitutional.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Next Crash after Bush’s>>OR<<Obama; the President that never was.
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:52:57 -0500
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 3/3/2010 4:29 PM, God’sLittleAnus wrote:
> Shall we be pro-active and call the next financial debacle “The Great
> Bush Depression Echo”?

Since This is Bush’s 3rd term, go for it…. when you read the history
books you won’t even know Obama was ever President.

According to the Obama side, everything is Bush’s fault which means
Obama hasn’t done anything.

*Obama; the President that never was*

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: surrender your supplies to authorities during a disaster>>OR<<
Are you redistributing "smart" or are you redistributing "stupidity"
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 13:45:45 -0500
From: Occam's Razor

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010 09:56:14 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
> wrote:
>
>> With the recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile, it has given the
>> world…and your neighbors…a refresher course into what happens when
>> the thin veil of society breaks down.
>>
>> Along with the related question of firearms currently being discussed,
>> one has to consider how the breakdown of society will affect you and
>> your supplies. If you are the only one on the block hydrated, well
>> fed, lights on at night..well it doesn’t take anyone long to figure
>> out that you have supplies…including the authorities.
>>
>> So if a disaster occurred where you live where society breaks down,
>> would
>> you surrender your resources (water, food, fuel, etc.) to an
>> authorities if asked to?

>>
>>
>> Why or why not?

Don’t all the people have the same opportunity to plan for it right now,
so if I chose to plan for “MY” survival, how does that become the
collectives resource, shouldn’t other individuals or the “Collective”
have planned for disaster?

Are you trying to redistribute “smart” or are you redistributing
“stupidity”?

On 3/3/2010 11:25 AM, Joe Steel wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote in
> news:4b8d8e8f$0$11422$ec3e2dad@&#$?%unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>
>> On 3/2/2010 3:47 PM, Joe Steel wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The People are sovereign. Being sovereign means you never have to
>>> say “May I.” The People may do what they wish.
>>>
>> I didn’t get that part in my copy of the constitution, send me a copy
>> of yours…. I don’t think you are so stupid as to tell me something
>> you have no written copy of.
>>
>
> When James Madison knew he would be involved in writing the Constitution,
> he asked his friend Thomas Jefferson, US ambassador to France, to send
> him the latest European works on government. Among the work he received
> almost certainly was “The Social Contract” by Jean Jacques Rousseau. It
> includes this:
>
> “At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting
> party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body,
> composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving
> from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This
> public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took
> the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it
> is called by its members State when passive. Sovereign when active, and
> Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in
> it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called
> citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under
> the laws of the State. But these terms are often confused and taken one
> for another: it is enough to know how to distinguish them when they are
> being used with precision.

” *Those* who are associated in it take collectively the name of people,”

So when you say *the people* it means *those* within the group called
the people.

I would say they are individuals. But when described as *the people*
are not just “one” as the “States” are not just one, but each has the
same individual rights and are collectively no different. Two States
have no more power than one, two people have no more power than one, we
are equal, “the people” are equal to any one member, no more or less.

I can *NOT* do as I wish…. and as *the people* I have a constitution
that must be considered as to whether it is a power given in it to the
Federal government the States or the people. If it is a right for the
people, then each and every individual has that right it’s not a
collective right only usable when all come together as the people. To
start with, we never really come together to agree on anything as the
people, that is why we elect government representatives. We can’t be
sovereign as the people because we are never acting as one, but as
government we are sovereign because we can act as one.

James Madison called people Sovereign when active or *voting*

“composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes”

When you vote you exercise a power just as the States have elected
people that act having supreme, independent authority over a territory
as does the Federal Government.

We are suppose to be *part* of the sovereign power but…
*NOT THE sovereign power* . We each vote and collectively(the people)
our votes are sovereign having supreme, independent authority over a
territory.

But that’s just How I read that. That was good stuff thanks and maybe
we read it a little different but I always see the constitution as
separating power, power is never centralized in the constitution from
all I have read.

On 3/3/2010 12:17 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:08 pm, Occam’s Razor wrote:
>> On 3/2/2010 10:13 PM, Lisa Lisa wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 3:35 pm, “Clyde” wrote:
>>>> “Lisa Lisa” wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:7be12786-c1a5-4cc5-beeb-7b411b2d2e03@&#$?%b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com…
>>
>>>> We cannot keep adding to the debt,” Bunning said in remarks on the Senate
>>>> floor. The legislation is not paid for, contrary to a recent pay-as-you-go
>>>> law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed into law.http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100301/NEWS01/3010341/1008
>>
>>> So can we pull out of Iraq and Asscrackistan?
>>
>> Democrats shouldn’t have signed it into law, if they didn’t want to be
>> subject to it. We can’t ignore the law and run red lights.
>
> then why did the republicans dump paygo in 2001:)

Maybe Repubs saw this public relations disaster coming…. the Democrats
think they can lie and get away with having the law and then breaking
it. They get accolades for passing Pay-go and then just ignore it, to
pass more spending for more accolades…. It’s win win unless someone
highlights your hypocrisy.

The Republicans were honest about it, they couldn’t live up to Pay-go
and they knew it and didn’t want to try the slick Liberal tricks and
tell you one thing while doing another. Telling you one thing while
doing another is standard lying Liberal-Socialist procedure so the
Democrats thought nothing of putting out another lie that they never
intended to be forced to actually live up too.

It’s like Charlie Rangel thinking he can lie to the IRS and their laws
are just something he doesn’t have to follow. Rangel will tell you one
thing and lie and thinks he won’t be forced to live up to the IRS laws
he has passed, it was win win for Rangel. But then someone showed us
Rangel’s hypocrisy.

It’s a Liberal-Socialist *modus operandi* They do this over and over.

On 3/3/2010 1:31 AM, retrogrouch@&#$?%comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:57:46 -0500, Occam’s Razor
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2010 2:13 PM, retrogrouch@&#$?%comcast.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:05:55 -0500, Occam’s Razor
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2010 11:21 AM, retrogrouch@&#$?%comcast.net wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:51:34 -0500, Occam’s Razor
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will a Liberal Nation that votes by their feelings survive? –
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask Denmark?
>>>>>
>>>> So the answer is NO….
>>
>>
>>> Oh you didn’;t want an honest answer. You just wanted to spout off.
>>>
>>> I understand.
>>
>> NOT quite…..
>> If you did understand you would ask; Why is Denmark in the EU?
>>
>>
>>
>> “Denmark is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of
>> government. Denmark has a state-level government and local governments
>> in 98 municipalities. Denmark has been a member of the European Union
>> since 1973, although it has not joined the Eurozone. Denmark is a
>> founding member of NATO and the OECD.”
>
> I almost believe you think you had a point.

They are a State in the EU….. Denmark is being assimilated.

Denmark before Socialism and all their feelings took over is gone, and
NOW their Socialist Denmark is being assimilated into the EU collective.

Soon to become just another bland tasteless socialist state that is
homogenized and uniform across the EU. Socialist love to talk about
Diversity and yet all the laws they pass and the Socialist system itself
destroys diversity. They have lost their unique Nation and their
feelings have them voting for their own destruction.

The irony is staggering.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark
>
> . .
> Welfare state
>
> Denmark has a highly developed welfare safety net, which ensures that
> all Danes receive tax-funded health care and generous unemployment
> insurance. Denmark ranked the first in the European pensions barometer
> survey for the past two years[12] The lowest-income group before
> retirement from the age of 65 receive 120% of their pre-retirement
> income in pension and miscellaneous subsidies.
>
> The large public sector (30% of the entire workforce on a full-time
> basis[13]) is financed by the world’s highest taxes[11]. A value added
> tax of 25% is levied on the sale of most goods and services (including
> groceries). The income tax in Denmark ranges from 42.9%[11] to 63%
> progressively, levied on 4 out of 10 full-time employees[14]. Such
> high rates mean that 1,010,000 Danes before the end of 2008 (44% of
> all full-time employees) will be paying a marginal income tax of 63%
> and a combined marginal tax of 70.9% resulting warnings from
> organisations such as the OECD [15][16]. TV2 (Denmark) reported in
> April 2008 that abolishing the middle- and top-level income tax
> brackets would amount to two (2) and one (1) percent of public sector
> revenue, respectively, which equals one and a half percent of GDP. The
> public sector as a whole had a budget surplus of 4.4% of GDP in 2007,
> but the tax cuts would increase private consumption and the labor
> shortage and thus result in a deficit on the trade balance and
> pressure to increase wages even further. Proceeds from selling one’s
> home (if there is any home equity (da: friværdi)) is not taxed, as the
> marginal tax rate on capital income from housing savings is around 0
> percent.[17] A survey by Standard & Poor’s found that the total debt
> secured by mortgages in Danish homes amounts to 89.8% of GDP, which is
> above the debt level in other EU countries (and the U.S.A. at 74.6% of
> GDP).[18]
>
> Discussions on increasing the labor supply include abolishing a labor
> market arrangement called efterløn (eng.:early retirement pay)[19], at
> the present (end of 3rd quarter 2008) with more than 130,000
> participants (60 years until 64 years of age)[20]. Participation in
> this scheme is also open for self-employed people (farmers, fishermen,
> lawyers, etc.). Shortening the time unemployment benefit can be
> received (four years at the present), as an example, is also
> discussed. The Danish Economic Council in its 2008 spring report (27
> May)[21] proposes limiting the dagpengeperiode to 2.5 years, which is
> still half a year more than at present in Norway and one and a half
> year more than in Sweden, said in an interview by the chairman (da:
> overvismand) (professor of economics, University of Copenhagen) Peter
> Birch Sørensen 27 May 2008 on the TV program Deadline (10.30 pm),
> channel DR2, the Danish Broadcasting Corporation.
> [edit] Tax Burden and employment
> [edit] Tax burden
>
> With a GDP of 1,642,215 million DKK and revenue from taxes and
> ownership at 803,693 million DKK (2006)[11], 49.07% of GDP, it is of
> extreme importance what happens in the tax-financed part of the
> economy. According to newly revised statistics, Denmark has had the
> world’s highest tax level in 2005 and 2006, at 50.7% and 49.1%
> respectively. Denmark also held this position 1970-74 and 1993-95 .
> These figures do not include income from ownership.[11]

Look at what they have done to Denmark, I left all this above
because it’s just so self explanatory. I couldn’t misspell anything
above because it was to important and succinct, so “hear” is one for you
after the fact.

Just my cense of humor……

On 3/3/2010 9:15 AM, hal wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:51:31 -0500, Occam’s Razor
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2010 5:23 PM, Transition Zone wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 5:13 pm, AZDuffman wrote:
>>>> On Feb 27, 3:30 pm, hal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:43:10 -0800 (PST), Transition Zone
>>>>> They’re not pouring anything down the drain, but rather simply faced
>>>>> with a determined and fanatical obstructionist opposition that will
>>>>> not agree to or cooperate with anything. It’s hard to make any
>>>>> progress in a republic when the opposition never does anything but do
>>>>> everything possible to obstruct an progress at all.
>>>>
>>>> When Obama tells the GOP to sit down and shut up should he expect
>>>> anything less?
>>>
>>> Who goes by expectation? The law of unintended consequences rules.
>>>
>>>> Besides, Obamacare is not “progress” at all. Increasing costs and
>>>> decreasing choice is not progress where I come from.
>>>
>>> Obamacare hasn’t been tried yet, so how can you even know?
>>
>> Yes it has, Obama-care is more government and we’ve seen it over and
>> over and it never works.
>>
>> Government is the problem Our Constitution IS the solution.
>
> Our Constitution that was written by liberals. And is kept alive by
> liberals.

Liberals created Slavery in the constitution? Glad to hear you finally
fess up. Is that why you feel guilt and want to discriminate against
whites…. do you also cut yourself and find yourself in a self
loathing funk?

Why do you redefine its meaning? does that make it live on or is it the
rebirth of the Constitution as a mutant document that you think is
better than the Constitution.

You don’t preserve and protect the Constitution, you change and distort
the Constitution.

*MY LIBERTARIAN/Tea Party BAIL-OUT PLAN*

Reducing regulations is primary since regulation is what stifles
commerce, the more regulations, the more it costs our economy. Most
regulations are used by existing businesses to reduce competition, and
competition would help us get out of this depression.

End the “war on drugs” make them legal(increase competition) and sold
at any drug store and push for prostitution to be legal too, that will
take the BIG money out of trafficking in drugs, and that will reduce the
gangs/dealers income and that should reduce the value of sex slaves and
hurt the human trafficking business income also.  Why have illegal
prostitutes when there are so many legal tax paying prostitutes out there?

Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment…

Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) with the same amendment that removes income tax and the IRS,
preferably a Federal *NEW ITEM* sales tax. This will reduce the number
of tax crimes that people are in jails for and it will give the people back
their privacy. It will also promote *GREEN* living where people will save
more and waste less and buy second hand and wear things out rather
than discard and buy new.  Then add the amendment to it that if they
raise tax by 1% they are forced to cut every single expenditure of the
government by 3%.

Begin to draw down troops as needed from around  the world. Put half
of our military bases along the southern Border to minimize the amount
of border that the Border patrol needs to watch, the military and Federal
laws will push the illegals to spaces between the military bases.
This tax/border policy will financially assault the drug dealers and hookers
and other underground economy’s by forcing them to have to pay tax when
they *spend their money* , which will further reduce the benefit of
dealing in other illegal stuff.  We are “right now” taking money from
peoples pay checks before they get them and at the same time we don’t
tax drug dealers or hookers and illegals or others at all, we are
penalizing the working Americans. Sales tax will also encourage saving
money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can get
like income tax does.

This will drive people in the underground economy to become part of the
real economy. It will stop most of the turf killings and end our
Immigration problems with illegals stealing identities since they will
be paying tax(as sales tax). Offer illegals less welfare and charge them
tax and they won’t be so eager to come here and we won’t need to chase
them……

End Social Security/Medicare, grandfather it out of existence.

Pass an amendment to the constitution that makes all
*laws_and_treaties* have a four year sunset clause, and it requires that
each law/treaty be voted by a separate roll call vote every four years
to continue to be maintained in our laws.  There should also be some
constitutional amendments to stifle congress’ borrowing and spending.
Pass another amendment creating term limits on congress so the House has
6 terms and the Senate has 2 terms, for a total of 12 years in either
side of congress. WE NEED TO STOP CONGRESS FROM PASSING FRIVOLOUS LAWS
TAXES AND BORROWING AND ENDLESSLY PRINTING MONEY.

We need to quit filling the jails with people over *social taboos* , we
need to take away congress’ ability to “social engineer” businesses or
private people by removing the tax code. Government needs to spend
10% less every year until they meet the income of the government. The
way, is to *use both cutting and taxing* , the Congress should implement
a rule to force an across the board spending freeze and then across the
board cuts on the government spending, to do that we have force them to
cut spending 3% for every 1% Leftists raise taxes.  SO any tax would
result in spending cuts using a baseline of 10% taxes.

And we need to give up our roll as the police man of the world, let
them fight their own fights. We need fewer people committing crimes, we
need fewer police and prisons….this drug and tax plan…. will reduce
police and prison needs by at least that 10% that this plan suggested
cutting.

NO welfare to corporations, and cut welfare to private people by 10%
each year until it is 10% of today’s cost.

Any way you look at it, we’re in DEEP for a long time.

On 2/28/2010 1:52 AM, None4U wrote:
> “Too_Many_Tools” wrote in message
> news:7a2a8bb8-f81e-4862-95d9-e093e786fecc@&#$?%33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com…
> On Feb 27, 11:56 pm, “None4U” wrote:
>> “Too_Many_Tools” wrote in message
>>
>> news:731b6600-8106-4129-9300-eb852397c6f3@&#$?%o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com…
>> On Feb 27, 11:39 pm, “None4U” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> “Kickin’ A&#$?%s and Takin’ Names” wrote in
>>> messagenews:ftujo5t3p31tjleqi6efa4csi9onl8tcsl@&#$?%4ax.com…
>>
>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:34:08 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In a recent discussion, it was mentioned that many of the problems
>>>>> with irresponsible use of guns would be solved if society held the
>>>>> owner of the gun accountable for all damages the gun does.
>>
>>>>> So if one’s gun is used to harm someone or something, that owner is
>>>>> responsible for all damages including jail time.
>>
>>>>> It would be up to the owner to control all access to the firearm…no
>>>>> excuses allowed.
>>
>>>>> Your opinion?
>>
>>>>> TMT
>>
>>>> Ol’ Kickin’ is waiting for the day that I’m at a mall or whatever when
>>>> some nutcase opens fire and an armed citizen whips out his pistol and
>>>> returns fire, hitting me or my bride.
>>
>>> Yup , you nutcases have to dream up this c&#$?%p, because it never happens.
>>> Legal armed and trained citizens dont shoot at nutcases numbnuts. Dont
>>> wory about the crackhead nutcase, just get the legally armed citizen who
>>> didnt shoot anybody. Is that your philosophy . Dream up s&#$?%t that doesnt
>>> happen , To attack legal Americans with. Its why you rejects get
>>> rejected
>>> by society.
>>
>>> Heres news dumbass. The nutcases criminals go to malls where signs are
>>> posted. Guns arent allowed . Their Victims dont shoot back. Crackheads
>>> dont want to die. Dream up some more bullshit that dont fly .
>>
>>> And you aint got a bride at the mall numbnuts.
>>
>>>> At which point I intend to sue the armed citizen for his bank account,
>>>> his retirement accounts, his house, cars, children’s college funds,
>>>> and even his pocket change.
>>
>>> You jacking off to that statement . Hoping it will happen. Dream on.
>>
>>> You Socialist already robbed everyone already with your welfare .- Hide
>>> quoted text -
>>
>>> – Show quoted text -
>>
>> I suggest you review the subject of civil suits for wrongful shooting
>> incidents.
>>
>> The guy is right…you can sued for for everything you own…including
>> your precious guns.
>>
>> No hes not right. The shootings dont happen. There wont be any sueing.
>> Carry people dont f&#$?%k up. They dont want to lose their s&#$?%t.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> – Show quoted text -
>
> Maybe you don’t have anything but your gun…so you would have little
> to lose..but your freedom when they would lock you up for misuse of
> your gun.

Maybe it was your bullet that killed, you see the gun doesn’t really
kill, it is the projectile that does the killing… Maybe you can go to
jail since you put the bullet in the gun;
*the gun that’s totally harmless without the bullet* .

>
> There is no misuse. quit making things up.
> TMT
>
>

On 2/19/2010 9:49 AM, Jerry Sturdivant wrote:
>
>
> “Yer Pal Al” wrote in message
> news:b02260b0-4d9d-48de-aa3e-39ab6dd84334@&#$?%d34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com…
>> On Feb 18, 4:36 pm, “Jerry Sturdivant” wrote:
>>> “imaginarium” wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:20100218112341.4f6a1f13.dr@&#$?%par.nas.sus…
>>>
>>> > On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:10:17 -0800
>>> > “Jerry Sturdivant” wrote:
>>>
>>> >> I love watching “imaginarium” on the ropes.
>>> > I love watching you “imagine” your own little uselessnet fantsay.
>>>
>>> Face it, kid; we kicked your scrawny a&#$?%s and you lost. The Stimulus is
>>> working and other posters have proved it.
>
>> Of course it’s working, but it’s not working very well and when the
>> money runs out, so will the jobs.
>
> That’s the POINT in stimulus. Those working are making money. They spend
> THEIR money. Prime the pump. stimulate. Get it? Got it? Good…. The
> economists have been telling you that,
>
>
> Jerry (glad to help) ‘n Vegas
>

The “well” is dry, priming the pump will only work when you have a
reservoir to draw from. The capitalist drive to go out and make money
isn’t there to draw from, it’s a waste to prime when there is no
capitalist at the bottom of the well you prime… Obama has stomped on
the capitalist and told them that they can work all they want, but he
plans to *take their ill gotten capitalist gains* and redistribute them.
That sure inspires me to go out and take risks to get rich so Obama can
take it and redistribute it.

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

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:
Re: Limp D&#$?%k Loons can see the coming Conservative TSUNAMI
Coming in November but are Powerless to Stop IT!

Date:
Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:49:50 -0500

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

Newsgroups:
alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.usa,alt.society.liberalism,alt.global-warming,alt.conspiracy

References:
<cb0facd8-2456-4f09-9c8b-9d7f4ee94665@&#$?%d27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

On 2/16/2010 2:10 AM, wolfagain wrote:
> Under Obama’s socialist agenda to REDISTRIBUTE the wealth the
> Democratic party has fallen from it’s highest high since the Hoover
> depression to the very bottom of the Jimmy Carter days! Barack Hussain
> Obama, the Republican’s Savior!

Even better is that Obama has shown us how wrong Leftists are and has
therefore saved America’s freedom and Capitalism.

Forget the Republicans, they are a FOOTNOTE in the process, the Tea
Party will absorb the Republicans and the tea Party will rescue America
from Obama and his Socialist friends.

The problem is that it was *NOT* THE MOVEMENT….. the nice thing about
“the MOVEMENT” is that no one person or group is the head of the Tea
Party. *You are mistaken when you assume* the person telling you they
run the Tea Party “lock stock and Barrel” is an actual fact.

As I am working through it I see NO head on this “Tea Party” snake that
can be cut off or pinned down to control it.

If the “Tea Party” is somehow said to have a National or main, single
voice…. the s&#$?%t will hit the fan and you’ll see the so called leaders
shouted down as liars and political hacks. You’ll also find they are not
only a liar but probably a Lawyer and the only thing they “run” is their
mouth.

Palin can speak where ever she wants but she is no leader of the tea
party…. to start with she supports McCain and NO TEA PARTY will
support McCain, neither is Glenn Beck or FOX, the tea party is all local
and there need not be any National structure to tell us all what to do
since the only National election is the Presidential election and if we
control all else then the President will have to come to us to get
anything done.

The Tea Party isn’t concerned with Republicans or Democrats… because
the Tea Party is concerned with only a few issues and needs no long
laundry list. Republicans and Democrats are sucking up to, or attacking
the Tea Party, therefore the Tea Party is in the drivers seat, they all
come to us.

*OUR BIBLE*
1. Smaller government
2. Economic freedom and responsibility
3. Protect and defend the Constitution
4. National Security

The rest will take care of its self, and that makes *us* the biggest
tent there is. That’s why Leftists will keep losing and you can’t
corrupt or take over “this” Party, because it is no Party at all.

Think of the tea party as a *NON* violent AL Qaeda and our Bible is the
4 items above.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: So which “tea party” are you talking about ??
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:27:22 -0500
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Organization: Usenet Monster Unlimited – http://www.usenetmonster.com
Newsgroups:
alt.machines.cnc,misc.survivalism,talk.politics.guns,alt.politics,alt.politics.libertarian,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
References:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:44:11 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>> http://capitolhillcoffeehouse.com/more.php?id=8215_0_1_0_M A Warning To
>>> The Tea Party Nation – By Chuck Baldwin
> …
>>> Obviously, not only did the GOP-controlled Congress not eliminate a
>>> single federal department or agency–or even shrink the size of the
>>> federal government at all–it expanded the size and scope of the federal
>>> government at every level. And there is one reason for it: Big
>>> Government
>
> neocons posing as champions of conservatism
>
>>> co-opted and
>>> destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
>>>
>>> If one wants to put names to these treasonous wretches (and I do), I?m
>>> talking about charlatans such as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott. Anyone
>>> who thinks that Newt Gingrich is a real conservative or that he will do
>>> anything to reduce the size and scope of the federal government needs to
>>> speak with any of those Republican members of the freshman class of
>>> 1994.
> …
>>> Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is
>>> not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he
>>> almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994.
>
>
>> “Conservative” cannot be used without a qualifying adjective. Either
>> “economic” or “social” otherwise it’s a meaningless label. Many, if not
>> most, of the Teabaggers are both and that’s a problem.
>>
>> Economic conservativism is a very good thing. Social conservativism is a
>> horrid Neanderthal. Sarah Palin is a social conservative who lies about
>> being an economic conservative. A Conservative Carpetbagger pretending
>> to be a teabagger.
>>
>> If the Teabaggers ever want to be recognized for the real issue, economic
>> conservativism they must become much more exclusive and reject the
>> Neanderthals now in their midst.
>>
>> By inviting Sarah Palin, at $100,000.00 for 1.5 hours of work, to their
>> convention they’ve soiled themselves and their movement.
>>
>> The author is dead on.

The problem is that it was *NOT* THE MOVEMENT….. the nice thing about
“the MOVEMENT” is that no one person or group is the head of the Tea
Party. *You are mistaken when you assume* the person telling you they
run the Tea Party “lock stock and Barrel” is an actual fact.

As I am working through it I see NO head on this “Tea Party” snake that
can be cut off or pinned down to control it.

If the “Tea Party” is somehow said to have a National or main, single
voice…. the s&#$?%t will hit the fan and you’ll see the so called leaders
shouted down as liars and political hacks. You’ll also find they are not
only a liar but probably a Lawyer and the only thing they “run” is their
mouth.

Palin can speak where ever she wants but she is no leader of the tea
party…. to start with she supports McCain and NO TEA PARTY will
support McCain, neither is Glenn Beck or FOX, the tea party is all local
and there need not be any National structure to tell us all what to do
since the only National election is the Presidential election and if we
control all else then the President will have to come to us to get
anything done.

The Tea Party isn’t concerned with Republicans or Democrats… because
the Tea Party is concerned with only a few issues and needs no long
laundry list. Republicans and Democrats are sucking up to, or attacking
the Tea Party, therefore the Tea Party is in the drivers seat, they all
come to us.

*OUR BIBLE*
1. Smaller government
2. Economic freedom and responsibility
3. Protect and defend the Constitution
4. National Security

The rest will take care of its self, and that makes *us* the biggest
tent there is. That’s why you will keep losing and you can’t corrupt or
take over “this” Party, because it is no Party at all.

Think of the tea party as a *NON* violent AL Qaeda and our Bible is the
4 items above.

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