OutSourcedNews-Group » NEW

SOCIALIST LIAR OBAMA USING MIS-INFORMATION IN ADS

admin — Thu, 17 May 2012 01:54:36 +0000

On 5/15/2012 7:35 PM, AGAINST SOCIALISM wrote:
> AdWatch: Obama highlights Romney, Bain Capital
> By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press
>
> NEW YORK (AP) — TITLE: “Steel”
>
> LENGTH: Two minutes and six minutes.
>
> AIRING: Colorado, Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia
>
> KEY IMAGES: The Obama campaign ad features interviews with several
> former employees of GST Steel, a Kansas City, Mo.- based company
> bought in 1993 by Bain Capital, the private equity firm Republican
> Mitt Romney co-founded and was running at the time of the purchase.
> The workers describe GST before Bain as a robust employer of several
> thousand people who received good wages and benefits. “That stopped
> with the sale of the plant to Bain Capital,” one steelworker says,
> over images of Romney on the campaign trail saying “I know how
> business works.”

Solyndra was a robust place till it went broke… why didn’t Obama
shovel another $500 million into it? Why didn’t Warren Buffet drop a
half billion on it? It all stopped when the management spent all the
money on stuff they didn’t need to make solar panels.

Typical Liberal bent on a for profit entity, a commercial for simpletons.

NEW IMPROVED OBAMA SOCIALIST SUPER-SIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT….

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:28:09 +0000

On 5/13/2012 1:25 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 12:52:09 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/2012 11:24 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 08:58:30 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> That would create inflation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably not, the thing that causes the
>>>>> most inflation is things that drive up costs,
>>>>> like wage increases, and scarcity, so what
>>>>> is scarce today?
>>>>
>>>> Money is scarce due to private sector
>>>> no longer borrowing $4 trillion like they
>>>> did in 2007.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or any other product, service or tangible
>>>>> offered for sale, if the money was gained honestly,
>>>>> why wouldn’t money in the hands of a China man
>>>>> be the same as for any other man.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First you claim the bond buyers are going to
>>>> put the money in the bank and not buy goods and services
>>>> that cause inflation. Then you claim that they will
>>>> use the trillions to buy goods and services
>>>> that do cause inflation
>>>>
>>>> The fact is the SS recipients are already
>>>> spending the money once. You want twice as
>>>> much $$ spent but insist there will be no inflation
>>> >from doing that.
>>>
>>> No, I don’t, no I don’t, I don’t, just the same
>>> pay out, without borrowing, it is congress that
>>> has already spent the SS trust fund and has to
>>> borrow if the treasury needs any of the virtual
>>> trust fund to pay pensions.
>>> The only way to do that is create emoney.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Inflation is what costs me money.
>>>> The interest on the federal debt costs me and
>>>> my grandchildren nothing.
>>>
>>> You don’t spend enough on the things
>>> that matter to be worrying about inflation,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> More interest on debt creates more taxes and more inflation and I was in
>> a few stores just yesterday and it’s NOT getting any cheaper out there
>> to live.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png
>>
>>
>> Government uses more of the GDP to pay the interest on the National debt
>> as they increase the size and cost of Government.
>>
>>
>> ["The argument for using GDP as a standard-of-living proxy is not that
>> it is a good indicator of the absolute level of standard of living, but
>> that living standards tend to move with per-capita GDP, so that changes
>> in living standards are readily detected through changes in GDP."]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The higher the percentage of the GDP that goes to paying government debt
>> (interest on the debt) the less your quality of living will be.
>>
>> Why does the equation for the GDP NOT have government spending minus the
>> government payment of interest on the debt as part of the equation.
>>
>> [" GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending
>> + (exports - imports), or
>>
>> GDP = C + I + G + ( X - M ) "]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You see government spending but where is the cost to the GDP of that
>> government spending…. It should be
>>
>> GDP = C + I + (G – INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT) + (X – M)
>>
>> If you are going to add what the government spends to help the economy
>> then you need to add what they are costing the economy also.
>>
>> They have conveniently left out a huge part of the GDP which is interest
>> on the National debt and it’s slated to be as much as our MILITARY COSTS
>> IN A FEW YEARS.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ["Federal debt as a share of the nation's income has varied.
>> Historically, the nation has run up deficits during wars and recessions,
>> but then debt has subsequently declined. For example, debt as a share of
>> the economy peaked just after World War II (112.7% of GDP in 1945), but
>> then fell. In recent years, however, sharp increases in deficits and the
>> resulting increases in debt have led to heightened concern about the
>> long-term sustainability of the federal government's fiscal policies
>> (62% of GDP in 2010).[9]…..
>>
>> Debt relative to GDP rose due to recessions and policy decisions in the
>> early 21st century. *From* 2000 to 2008 *debt held by the public rose*
>>from 35% to 40%, and to 62% by the *end of fiscal year* 2010.[19] During
>> the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from
>> $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008,[20]
>> due in part to the Bush tax cuts and increased military spending caused
>> by the wars in the Middle East.[21] Under President Barack Obama, the
>> debt increased from $10.7 trillion in 2008 to $15.5 trillion by February
>> 2012,[22] caused mainly by decreased tax revenue and higher safety net
>> costs due to the late-2000s recession and stimulus spending.[12]“]
>>
>>
>> *Debt is up 22% since Obama took over.*
>>
>> Even more since we have 2011 DATA and the National Debt is at 100% of
>> GDP. I notice that no one is updating the data that makes Obama look bad.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Federal_debt_to_GDP_-_2000_to_2010.png
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ["The federal government's interest payments depend primarily on
>> interest rates and the amount of debt held by the public. Other factors,
>> such as the rate of inflation and the maturity structure of outstanding
>> securities, also affect interest costs (for example, long-term bonds
>> generally carry higher interest rates than do short-term bills).
>> Interest rates are determined by a combination of market forces and the
>> policies of the Federal Reserve. Debt held by the public is determined
>> mostly by cumulative budget deficits, which depend on policy choices
>> about spending and revenues and on economic conditions and other factors.
>>
>> Although *the federal government has increased its net borrowing* by
>> more than $3 *trillion in the past two years*, net interest costs
>> dropped from $253 billion in 2008 to $197 billion in 2010 because of
>> remarkably low interest rates. The amounts of net interest shown in the
>> budget include interest paid on all Treasury securities ($413 billion in
>> 2010), minus the portion of that interest that is received by trust
>> funds ($186 billion in 2010) and the net amount of other interest
>> received by the government ($30 billion in 2010). The last category
>> consists primarily of net receipts to the Treasury from the financing
>> accounts for federal loan programs (those accounts are not included in
>> the federal budget).
>>
>> In CBO's most recent projections, which assume that current laws remain
>> the same, annual deficits decline from the $1.3 trillion recorded in
>> 2010, but the cumulative deficit from 2011 through 2020 exceeds $6.2
>> trillion. Borrowing to finance that deficit--in combination with an
>> expected rise in interest rates--would lead to a fourfold increase in
>> net interest payments over the next 10 years, from $197 billion in 2010
>> to $778 billion in 2020. As a percentage of GDP, net interest outlays
>> would more than double during that period, rising from 1.4 percent to
>> 3.4 percent."]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Looks like the cost of the interest as part of the GDP doubles and what
>> is bad is that the *PIE IN THE SKY* HOPE AND CHANGE is making things
>> worse and NOT better as they predicted so you can imagine all these
>> numbers being much worse as in more than doubling them……
>>
>> All those good numbers are with Obama and the Federal reserve
>> MANIPULATING interest rates and the economy…. what happens when they
>> can no longer afford to manipulate this phony economy?
>>
>>
>>
>> The more government grows and borrows and the more interest we pay, the
>> less of a standard of living you will enjoy.
>>
>> “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America ‘s debt limit
>> is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government
>> cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing
>> financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s
>> reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America ‘s debt weakens us
>> domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, “the buck stops
>> here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today
>> onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt
>> problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
>> *Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006*
>
> Yeah, I remember when my Aunt died in 2001
> she had been getting about 8 percent on bonds
> and CDs, and as soon as I had them put in my
> name, I was lucky to get 1.5 percent.
>
> April 2001, who was president?

And this time next year you and the others will be getting 8% and the
government will be paying that and more to sell their Fed Bonds to get
all that money they need to pay for their NEW IMPROVED OBAMA SOCIALIST
SUPER-SIZED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT …. then the sky is the limit from that
point.

Federal tax receipts are lowest they have been since 1950.

admin — Wed, 09 May 2012 18:08:13 +0000

On 5/9/2012 2:12 AM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:09:59 -0500, jim < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net>
> wrote:
>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/8/2012 5:00 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And now we are $5 trillion or more “farther in debt” and we are NOT
>>>>> improving, so all that has happened was that the money was wasted and
>>>>> laundered to unions and Friends of Obama like Solyndra.
>>>>
>>>> That is $5 trillion that is circulating in the economy.
>>>
>>> It was circulating in the private sector until it was taxed away and
>>> used to create and enrich the government parasite.
>>
>> Maybe in your fairy tale but in the real world
>> Federal tax receipts are lowest they have been since 1950.
>
> Now that is a problem, but to be more precise,
> federal spending is at an all time high, with no idea
> how the borrowing will be paid back, or when.

Yes you have to explain everything to Liberals… All Government
spending is paid for by the TAX payers.

SO all Government SPENDING is looking for a tax to use as a source of
money to pay for that spending. That means all spending is a tax or
maybe better called a “POTENTIAL TAX” that will need to be levied on
taxpayers at some point in time.

The Liberal plan to get that tax money is to spend more and that will
somehow create new wealth to tax and pay for the borrowed money and the
interest on that borrowed money.

Instead, the borrowed money and the wealth it supposedly created
evaporates into the vacuum of the universe. Low tax receipts means NO
NEW wealth is being created to tax and then there is all that borrowed
money that we can’t find.

IN SHORT, borrowing and printing new money, is a tax that has yet to be
implemented to pay for money and interest that is already spent.

Government is a parasite, a parasite that doesn’t create any wealth. It
is NOT a symbiosis, it’s a one sided deal where Government sucks the
life out of the economy.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:26:42 +0000

On 4/23/2012 8:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 6:09 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 8:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/20/2012 7:20 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>>>>>>>>>>> all of
>>>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008
>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>>>> coronation
>>>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average
>>>>>> of $2
>>>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>>>>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and
>>>> by a huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>>>> him
>>>> the 2010 budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>>>> ballooned the national debt.
>>>>
>>>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>>>> that he
>>>> was divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill,
>>>> and told her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>>>> balance of $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he
>>>> attempts to make the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>>
>>> I have made only one claim: that the claim that the deficit went up
>>> 100% under Obama is false.
>>
>>
>> I believe I have proven that Obama is increasing the deficit by about $2
>> trillion a year on average
>
> Simply a lie. The deficit doesn’t even approach $2 trillion, so he
> can’t possibly be increasing it by $2 trillion a year. Keep those lies
> coming, Beamer.

Then you tell us all how much the National debt has risen since Obama’s
inauguration day…. once you get that put on paper, then divide it by
3.5 years Obama has been president, then post that number here and tell
us how much the deficit is on average for the Obama Presidency.

I’m Not even talking about QE2 and QE3 yet but we can go there next and
add that cost to the numbers you post.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:20:56 +0000

On 4/23/2012 8:22 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:11 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>> news:4d789092-c5fa-4986-ab43-2919127223f2 @&*$?%m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>>> news:27b36a16-338b-499e-99f2-95ea035ba907 @&*$?%p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>>> On Apr 20, 8:24 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>>>> news:0b8617a9-d46b-4dd5-95f3-e08a007d66a2 @&*$?%i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com…
>>>> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>>>>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much
>>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to
>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>>>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>>>>> coronation
>>>>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> $2
>>>>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8
>>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>>>>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>>>>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush,
>>>>> and
>>>>> by
>>>>> a
>>>>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him
>>>>> the
>>>>> 2010
>>>>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has ballooned
>>>>> the
>>>>> national debt.
>>
>>>>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that
>>>>> he
>>>>> was
>>>>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill,
>>>>> and
>>>>> told
>>>>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a balance
>>>>> of
>>>>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to
>>>>> make
>>>>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>
>>>> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
>>>> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
>>>> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
>>>> you have to live with the results for decades to come.
>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>>> It might not disappear, but the debt also does not GROW.
>>
>>> sure it does. ever hear of interest. debt must be serviced. plus
>>> handing obama a blown out economy, two bungled wars, a unfunded
>>> medicare mandate, and two unfunded tax cuts for wealthy parasites, and
>>> its a witches brew.
>>
>>>> IF Obama was making a claim that he inheretted a bizzillion dollar debt,
>>>> and
>>>> the best he could do is shave a few hundred million, then fine. He’s
>>>> giving
>>>> it his best shot, and that’s all he can do. BUT he inheretted a
>>>> bizillion
>>>> dollar debt and now it is a two bizillion dollar debt. It’s really four
>>>> bizilion, but why quibble over details?
>>
>>> he was handed much more, see above.
>>
>>> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
>>> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
>>> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
>>> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
>>> make so much more now.
>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>> If YOU pay your bills, the debt gets smaller. Same thing for the
>>> government.
>>
>> and that is exactly what is happening, debt to gdp is dropping.
>>
>>> If you keep buying furniture, big screens, new cars, dig a pool in the
>>> yard,
>>> and so on, your debt grows whether you pay your bills or not. Same thing
>>> for
>>> government.
>>
>> then maybe bush should have cleaned things up, before handing the
>> bill to obama.
>>
>>> ObamaCare, bank bailouts, car companies, and so on, all cause the debt to
>>> grow. Obama is making the claim, and you are perpetuating it, that he took
>>> control of whatever debt there was, and now that it is several times
>>> greater, he’s blaming the guy he got it from.
>>
>>> You are fed a line of c&*$?%p, and you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
>>
>> i do not think to much of obama, he is to conservative. but i also
>> understand what he was handed. you either do not understand that, or
>> you are dishonest.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Obama is TO (sic) CONSERVATIVE?! Seriously?
>>
>> I know precisely what was handed to him, and I’ve explained it to you
>> several times already. I dumbed it down for easy understanding, and changed
>> the wars into furniture and TV sets, but I know what he was handed, and what
>> he will be passing off to the next poor b&*$?%d that takes the job –
>> looking like Romney as of now.
>>
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>> The unfunded wars notwithstanding, they cost no more today than they did 3
>>> years ago, so there is nothing changed there. The tax cuts spur
>>> investment,
>>> which creates jobs for which the income taxes are collected at a lower
>>> rate
>>> from a much larger pool and therefore make the receipts go up. But that
>>> ignores the fact that the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income
>>> taxes collected, and the bottom 40+% of income earners pay no tax at all.
>>
>> bush never counted it as part of the budget. and you stepped right
>> into it. it was bushs wars, he never paid for them. now the bill is
>> coming due.
>>
>>> If the debt remained flat, then Obama could make his claim that he
>>> inheritted a bucket of s&*$?%t that he has trouble dealing with. But the
>>> facts
>>> are that while he may have inheritted a bucket of s&*$?%t, he now has a truck
>>> load of s&*$?%t, and he filled most of the truck by himself.
>>
>> and debt to gdp is falling. put the blame where it belongs, square in
>> the hands of the tax cut and spend conservatives.
>
> then if you understand that bush handed obama a unfunded medicare
> mandate,

Obama cut Medicare by 500 Billion

[" Medicare spending continues to go up year after year. The health care
bill tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion
figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated
Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the
law makes to reduce spending. First of all, under the health care bill,
Medicare spending continues to go up year after year. The health care
bill tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion
figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated
Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the
law makes to reduce spending. "]

> two bungled unpaid for wars, two unfunded tax breaks for
> wealthy parasites, and a blown out economy, then obama cannot pay that
> off, even in eight short years. i bet others will have to pay, as
> clinton did for reagans drunken sailor spending and borrowing twelve
> years later:)))))

Clinton enjoyed the “PEACE DIVIDEND” from Reagan actually ending the
cold war and that allowed the Military to cut bases and personnel.

Clinton should have been kissing Reagan‘s feet.

If you know you’re supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:22:39 +0000

On 4/23/2012 12:48 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
> On 4/23/2012 12:11 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>> news:4d789092-c5fa-4986-ab43-2919127223f2 @&*$?%m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:27b36a16-338b-499e-99f2-95ea035ba907 @&*$?%p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>>> On Apr 20, 8:24 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>>
>>>> news:0b8617a9-d46b-4dd5-95f3-e08a007d66a2 @&*$?%i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com…
>>>
>>>> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>
>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>
>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative
>>> to > > >>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>>> all
>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using
>>> 2008 as
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>>>>>>>>>>> dollars
>>>>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>>>>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much >
>>>>>>> smaller
>>>>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to
>>>>>>> cover
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>
>>>>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>>>>> coronation
>>>>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it?
>>> That > > >> is
>>>>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an
>>> average > > >> of
>>>>>>> $2
>>>>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 >
>>>>>> years,
>>>>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>>>>>>> trillion
>>>>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>
>>>>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is
>>> the
>>>>>> last
>>>>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>>
>>>>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under
>>> Bush, > > and
>>>>> by
>>>>> a
>>>>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>>> him > > the
>>>>> 2010
>>>>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>>> ballooned > > the
>>>>> national debt.
>>>
>>>>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>>> that > > he
>>>>> was
>>>>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card
>>> bill, > > and
>>>>> told
>>>>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>>> balance
>>>>> of
>>>>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to
>>>>> make
>>>>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>>
>>>> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
>>>> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
>>>> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
>>>> you have to live with the results for decades to come.
>>>
>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>>> It might not disappear, but the debt also does not GROW.
>>>
>>> sure it does. ever hear of interest. debt must be serviced. plus
>>> handing obama a blown out economy, two bungled wars, a unfunded
>>> medicare mandate, and two unfunded tax cuts for wealthy parasites, and
>>> its a witches brew.
>>>
>>>> IF Obama was making a claim that he inheretted a bizzillion dollar
>>> debt,
>>>> and
>>>> the best he could do is shave a few hundred million, then fine. He’s
>>>> giving
>>>> it his best shot, and that’s all he can do. BUT he inheretted a >
>>> bizillion
>>>> dollar debt and now it is a two bizillion dollar debt. It’s really four
>>>> bizilion, but why quibble over details?
>>>
>>> he was handed much more, see above.
>>>
>>> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
>>> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
>>> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
>>> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
>>> make so much more now.
>>>
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> If YOU pay your bills, the debt gets smaller. Same thing for the
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> and that is exactly what is happening, debt to gdp is dropping.
>>
>>
>>> If you keep buying furniture, big screens, new cars, dig a pool in the
>>> yard,
>>> and so on, your debt grows whether you pay your bills or not. Same
>>> thing for
>>> government.
>>>
>>
>>
>> then maybe bush should have cleaned things up, before handing the
>> bill to obama.
>>
>>
>>> ObamaCare, bank bailouts, car companies, and so on, all cause the debt to
>>> grow. Obama is making the claim, and you are perpetuating it, that he
>>> took
>>> control of whatever debt there was, and now that it is several times
>>> greater, he’s blaming the guy he got it from.
>>>
>>> You are fed a line of c&*$?%p, and you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> i do not think to much of obama, he is to conservative. but i also
>> understand what he was handed. you either do not understand that, or
>> you are dishonest.
>
>
>
> Obama is too totalitarian…. But he is Socialist. You are mixing up
> “Conservative” with “Totalitarian” Obama is NOT conservative, he is
> very totalitarian. Obama wants to force all his laws and regulations on
> America even if it takes violating the constitution or procedures of the
> constitution. That is NOT conservative it is Stalin-esque. Castro
> does that and so does Hugo Chavez and they were all more Socialist than
> Conservative. If you know you’re supporting totalitarians then you are
> scum and if you don’t know it you are an idiot.
>
>
> NEXT, Obama was handed what we all knew was getting worse, and he went
> back to the WHITE HOUSE with McCain and BUSH for a meeting to discuss
> it. If they “all” had no idea how bad it was then NONE of them deserve
> to be PRESIDENT(because I knew it and my posts back to pre Obama prove
> it). Obama continued to say he knew how to fix the economy, turns out
> he hasn’t got a clue. His advisers didn’t see the economic crash coming
> so *what use are they* at seeing how to fix it.
>
>
> Socialists will Never be able to fix Capitalism.
>
>
> I said that on day one of Obama and I say it today.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

If you know your supporting totalitarians then you’re scum and if you don’t know it you’re an idiot.

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 16:48:49 +0000

On 4/23/2012 12:11 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
> news:4d789092-c5fa-4986-ab43-2919127223f2 @&*$?%m13g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
> On Apr 21, 10:41 am, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>> news:27b36a16-338b-499e-99f2-95ea035ba907 @&*$?%p6g2000yqi.googlegroups.com…
>> On Apr 20, 8:24 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>> >news:0b8617a9-d46b-4dd5-95f3-e08a007d66a2 @&*$?%i18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com…
>>
>> > On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>
>> > > “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> > >news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>> > > > On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>> > > >>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>> > > >>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> > > >>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> > > >>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative
>> to > > >>>>>>> a
>> > > >>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and
>> all
>> > > >>>>>>> of
>> > > >>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using
>> 2008 as
>> > > >>>>>>> the
>> > > >>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s
>> > > >>>>>>> last
>> > > >>>>>>> budget.
>>
>> > > >>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion
>> > > >>>>>> dollars
>> > > >>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that
>> > > >>>>>> cutting
>> > > >>>>>> that
>> > > >>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>> > > >>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>> > > >>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>> > > >>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>> > >
>> >>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>
>> > > >>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much >
>> > >>> smaller
>> > > >>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>> > > >> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now
>> > > >> the
>> > > >> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to
>> > > >> cover
>> > > >> his
>> > > >> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>> > > >> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>> > > >> coronation
>> > > >> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it?
>> That > > >> is
>> > > >> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an
>> average > > >> of
>> > > >> $2
>> > > >> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 >
>> > >> years,
>> > > >> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16
>> > > >> trillion
>> > > >> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>> > > > I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is
>> the
>> > > > last
>> > > > Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>> > > It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under
>> Bush, > > and
>> > > by
>> > > a
>> > > huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give
>> him > > the
>> > > 2010
>> > > budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>> ballooned > > the
>> > > national debt.
>>
>> > > Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too,
>> that > > he
>> > > was
>> > > divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card
>> bill, > > and
>> > > told
>> > > her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>> balance
>> > > of
>> > > $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to
>> > > make
>> > > the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>>
>> > the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
>> > does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
>> > idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
>> > you have to live with the results for decades to come.
>>
>> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> > It might not disappear, but the debt also does not GROW.
>>
>> sure it does. ever hear of interest. debt must be serviced. plus
>> handing obama a blown out economy, two bungled wars, a unfunded
>> medicare mandate, and two unfunded tax cuts for wealthy parasites, and
>> its a witches brew.
>>
>> > IF Obama was making a claim that he inheretted a bizzillion dollar
>> debt,
>> > and
>> > the best he could do is shave a few hundred million, then fine. He’s
>> > giving
>> > it his best shot, and that’s all he can do. BUT he inheretted a >
>> bizillion
>> > dollar debt and now it is a two bizillion dollar debt. It’s really four
>> > bizilion, but why quibble over details?
>>
>> he was handed much more, see above.
>>
>> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
>> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
>> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
>> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
>> make so much more now.
>>
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> If YOU pay your bills, the debt gets smaller. Same thing for the
>> government.
>>
>
>
>
>
> and that is exactly what is happening, debt to gdp is dropping.
>
>
>> If you keep buying furniture, big screens, new cars, dig a pool in the
>> yard,
>> and so on, your debt grows whether you pay your bills or not. Same
>> thing for
>> government.
>>
>
>
> then maybe bush should have cleaned things up, before handing the
> bill to obama.
>
>
>> ObamaCare, bank bailouts, car companies, and so on, all cause the debt to
>> grow. Obama is making the claim, and you are perpetuating it, that he
>> took
>> control of whatever debt there was, and now that it is several times
>> greater, he’s blaming the guy he got it from.
>>
>> You are fed a line of c&*$?%p, and you swallow hook, line, and sinker.
>>
>
>
>
> i do not think to much of obama, he is to conservative. but i also
> understand what he was handed. you either do not understand that, or
> you are dishonest.

Obama is too totalitarian…. But he is Socialist. You are mixing up
“Conservative” with “Totalitarian” Obama is NOT conservative, he is
very totalitarian. Obama wants to force all his laws and regulations on
America even if it takes violating the constitution or procedures of the
constitution. That is NOT conservative it is Stalin-esque. Castro
does that and so does Hugo Chavez and they were all more Socialist than
Conservative. If you know your supporting totalitarians then you are
scum and if you don’t know it you are an idiot.

NEXT, Obama was handed what we all knew was getting worse, and he went
back to the WHITE HOUSE with McCain and BUSH for a meeting to discuss
it. If they “all” had no idea how bad it was then NONE of them deserve
to be PRESIDENT(because I knew it and my posts back to pre Obama prove
it). Obama continued to say he knew how to fix the economy, turns out
he hasn’t got a clue. His advisers didn’t see the economic crash coming
so *what use are they* at seeing how to fix it.

Socialists will Never be able to fix Capitalism.

I said that on day one of Obama and I say it today.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:28:13 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:38 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 5:02 pm, Josh wrote:
>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>
> i said that to him years ago.

Has Obama ever signed a budget into law?

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:24:02 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:46 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Apr 20, 6:20 pm, “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>
>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>
>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>
>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/…
>>
>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>
>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>
>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>
>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the last
>>> Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and by a
>> huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him the 2010
>> budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has ballooned the
>> national debt.
>>
>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that he was
>> divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill, and told
>> her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a balance of
>> $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he attempts to make
>> the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>
> the debt from drunken sailor spending, and out right crank policies,
> does not disappear the very next day after a election. if you put a
> idiot in power, and most conservatives are. do not be to surprised if
> you have to live with the results for decades to come.

Obama and democrats had the House the Senate and the Presidency, they
could pass any law they please… they had 2 years of being all
powerful and *ALL* they did was run up the Debt.

They fixed NOTHING.

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:09:51 +0000

On 4/20/2012 8:58 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 7:20 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>> “Josh” wrote in message
>> news:jmsme4$i4s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>> On 4/20/2012 5:39 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>>>>>> budget.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>>>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>>>>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
>>>>> than they were under Bush.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
>>>> question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover
>>>> his
>>>> 1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?
>>>>
>>>> The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama
>>>> coronation
>>>> to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
>>>> roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
>>>> trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
>>>> had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
>>>> and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.
>>>
>>> I can only conclude you are too stupid to understand why 2009 is the
>>> last Bush budget year, since you keep ignoring that fact.
>>
>>
>> It doesn’t matter. The debt under Obama is greater than under Bush, and
>> by a huge percentage. Let’s give the 2009 budget to Bush. Let’s give him
>> the 2010 budget while we are passing stuff around. Obama STILL has
>> ballooned the national debt.
>>
>> Obama is making a claim, and by extension you are making it too, that he
>> was divorced and the judge told him to pay his wife’s credit card bill,
>> and told her to stop using it. He is bitching today that he inherited a
>> balance of $10,000 but now it is $25,000, and unmanageable. THEN he
>> attempts to make the claim that it’s ALL her fault.
>
> I have made only one claim: that the claim that the deficit went up
> 100% under Obama is false.

I believe I have proven that Obama is increasing the deficit by about $2
trillion a year on average by pointing out the National debt when Obama
took office and what it is today, can you prove that Bush increased the
debt at more than 1 trillion a year on average over his presidency?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Maybe a little visual stimulation will shock you back into reality….

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:06:54 +0000

TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS NEVER CHANGE >>>>deficit between 1947 and 2008>>> was less than Obama Deficit spending.

admin — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:39:58 +0000

On 4/20/2012 4:58 PM, Josh wrote:
> On 4/20/2012 4:05 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 4/19/2012 10:32 PM, Josh wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2012 10:08 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2012 1:09 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 19, 12:45 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Spending went down as a % of GDP in 2010 and 2011 relative to a
>>>>> baseline in 2009 (Bush’s last budget). Your confusion (and all of
>>>>> your mistaken analysis snipped below) stems from using 2008 as the
>>>>> baseline year to evaluate Obama. 2009, not 2008, is Bush’s last
>>>>> budget.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the deficit went up by 100% after Obama, Bushes $1 trillion dollars
>>>> became Obama’s $2 trillion dollars and now you suggest that cutting
>>>> that
>>>> by 1% is an accomplishment?
>>>
>>> 2009 (Bush’s last budget): deficit $1.4T
>>> 2010 and 2011 (Obama): deficit $1.3T
>>>
>>> Why do you keep saying that Obama increased Bush’s $1T to $2T?
>>
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2011/07/25/Blogs/ezra-klein/StandingArt/debt%20changes%20under%20bush%20obama.jpg?uuid=qZCizrbZEeCYzBMQCYwsyQ
>>
>
> That link claims the spending increases under Obama are much smaller
> than they were under Bush.

Thanks for Noticing, even you catch the WILD Liberal lies….. Now the
question is why did Obama propose 1.5 trillion in NEW TAXES to cover his
1.5 trillion in NEW SPENDING?

The Federal/National debt is up from $9 trillion at the Obama coronation
to $16 trillion in 3.5 years? If that isn’t debt what is it? That is
roughly $7 trillion of NEW OBAMA DEBT. That amounts to an average of $2
trillion per year in the last 3.5 years. Bush was in office 8 years,
had he run the debt up 2 trillion a year it would have been 16 trillion
and Obama’s would NOW be at $23 trillion in debt.

SO NOW we know that Obama is leading the pack on wasteful spending with
himself maybe being the most expensive education the American people
have ever received.

Socialism is something we just can’t afford. Like Liberals say we need
to pay for tax cuts, well… you need to pay for Socialism and you
haven’t done it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/obama-to-present-balanced-plan-to-tackle-deficit/

Or are you just saying that Obama is happy to pay down Republican
spending rather than cut that republican waste out of the Federal
Government? And why would Obama pay for Republican waste rather than
cutting it out of the budget?

You see how your Liberal lies get you in a box every time.

A new excuse for gas prices .. credit cards!

admin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:40:40 +0000

> On 4/16/12 11:20 AM, cloud dreamer wrote:
>> On 16/04/2012 1:44 PM, trotsky wrote:
>>> On 4/16/12 10:16 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> In article
@&*$?%WSB.com>,
>>>> Neal Boortz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The ABC News story also failed to point out other facts about the
>>>>> cost of
>>>>> a gallon of gasoline. The ObamaMedia is quick to blame the oil
>>>>> companies
>>>>> or the credit card companies, how about our own government? With
>>>>> boxers
>>>>> in a bunch over 7 cents for the credit card swipe fee, let’s talk
>>>>> about
>>>>> the 18.4 cents that the federal government skims off of each gallon of
>>>>> gas. Add that to the state taxes also added into the price of a gallon
>>>>> of gas. Those taxes can add anywhere from 8 cents (Alaska) to 49 cents
>>>>> (New York) per gallon.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, it’s interesting to watch the lefties start screeching about how
>>>> much the oil companies profit off the masses every time gas prices go
>>>> up, but they never seem to mind the gazillions of government profits
>>>> that result when gas prices rise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Because if the government had more money coming in, the deficit might go
>>> down?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you’d like revise your bullshit statement.
>>
>>
>> You know, with all this whining over taxes, I have to wonder where they
>> think the money for road and bridge construction and maintenance comes
>> from.

According to the Democrat politicians, NO money is for fixing Bridges
and Roads….. we send it in but the bridges and Roads never seem to
get fixed and we strangely need MORE TAXES to fix the roads and bridges.

somewhere between the government and the private contractor… maybe at
the UNION level, we lose the money and can’t fix the roads and bridges.

So then we need NEW TAXES.

Bill Cosby:”I’m 76 and I’m Tired”

admin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:29:34 +0000

On 4/11/2012 8:24 AM, Independent old cuss wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:50:19 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 10, 3:33 pm, Independent old cuss wrote:
>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 12:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 10, 1:07 pm, No Surren…@never.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> RONALD REAGAN BACKED THE BUFFET RULE:Reagan describes a letter he
>>>> received from an executive who wanted to come to Washington and tell
>>>> Congress why it’s wrong that he was able to take advantage of the
>>>> present tax code to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary
>>>
>>>> http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/09/460853/new-video-presiden…
>>>
>>>> NEW VIDEO: President Reagan Backs The Buffett Rule
>>>> By Josh Dorner on Apr 9, 2012 at 1:52 pm
>>>> Last fall, when President Obama debuted the Buffett Rule — the simple
>>>> idea that millionaires and billionaires should pay at least the same
>>>> tax rate as middle class workers — we climbed into the wayback machine
>>>> and found a video of President Ronald Reagan decrying “crazy” tax
>>>> loopholes that allowed a millionaire to pay a lower tax rate than a
>>>> bus driver.
>>>> With the Senate set to vote one week from today on a Buffett Rule bill
>>>> that would make sure millionaires and billionaires pay a minimum tax
>>>> rate of 30 percent, we now present another video of former President
>>>> Reagan supporting the principle behind the Buffett Rule. In today’s
>>>> video, President Reagan describes a letter he received from an
>>>> executive who wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why it’s
>>>> “wrong” that he was able to “take advantage of the present tax code”
>>>> to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary. Watch it:
>>>
>>>> Sounds pretty familiar.
>>>> We need to build an economy that works for everyone, not just the
>>>> privileged few. We can start by passing the Buffett Rule to make sure
>>>> millionaires and billionaires can no longer take advantage of unfair
>>>> tax loopholes to pay a lower tax rate than millions of middle class
>>>> workers.
>>>
>>> Why don’t they just cut out the loopholes and quit pulling the wool
>>> over the peons eyes?
>>> —
>>> Thomas Sowell hit the nail on the head with:
>>>
>>> “One of the consequences of such notions as
>>> ‘entitlements’ is that people who have contributed
>>> nothing to society feel that society owes them
>>> something, apparently just for being nice enough
>>> to grace us with their presence.”
>>>
>>> An independent old cuss
>>
>> some of the wealthy feel entitled not to contribute.
>>
>> Taxes are not “punishment for success”. Nor are they “theft”. Taxes
>> are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
>> a shared socio-economic system.
>>
>> “Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage.”
>> – Common Law maxim
>>
>>
>> “….Adam Smith—one of the founders of modern economics—recognized
>> clearly that a poor distribution of wealth could undermine the free
>> market system, noting that: “The disposition to admire, and almost to
>> worship, the rich and the powerful and…neglect persons of poor and
>> mean condition…is the great and most universal cause of the corruption
>> of our moral sentiments.”
>>
>>
>> “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . .
>> The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of
>> the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best
>> advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
>> possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
>> contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their
>> revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” ??-Adam Smith,
>> quoted in the New Yorker, October 27 2008
>> ————————————————————————————-
>> 0/communist-adam-smith-on-spreading.html
>>
>> SUNDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2008
>> Communist Adam Smith on spreading the wealth
>>
>> “Servants, labourers, and workmen of different kinds, make up the far
>> greater part of every political society. But what improves the
>> circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an
>> inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and
>> happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and
>> miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and
>> lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the
>> produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed,
>> cloathed and lodged.” – Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Bk. 1, Ch. 8
>>
>> “All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age
>> of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
>> — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
>>
>> “No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the
>> members are poor and miserable.”
>> — Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
>>
>> “The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary
>> effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth.
>> The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the
>> natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving
>> condition that they going backwards fast.”
>> — Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
>>
>> “The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of
>> the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their
>> respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they
>> respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ….[As Henry
>> Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to]
>> ‘remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
>> poor and burdening the rich.’”
>> — Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations
>
> “All men are created equal and by God I’m going to keep them that
> way!”
> –Stalin

And he was willing to kill as many as he needed to make that happen.

Be the best you can be at mediocrity, make everyone proud of you.

If George Washington were alive he would start a REVOLUTION.

admin — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:34:15 +0000

On 3/26/2012 7:40 AM, Topaz wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:49:24 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> There is nothing at all wrong with sterilization for the severly
>>> retarded. It is necessary and good.
>>
>> I have no problem with voluntary sterilization…. Government forcing
>> people to do things is a problem.
>
> No one wants to force people to do anything unless there is a very
> good reason.

Sure you do… you want to force me to pay for other peoples
contraceptives. You want Obama care to mandate that all coverage cover
contraceptives and you want me to be mandated to buy that ObamaCare
coverage. That means that I have to buy someone else their contraceptives.

It is un-American and If George Washington were alive he would start a
REVOLUTION.

> There is a very good reason. The future of humanity is at
> stake. See the beginning of the movie “Idiocracy”. The beginning is
> true.

Seen it, and years before that I was calling America a “Mediocracy”,
which it has truly become.

> Do you think people should be forced to stop at the red lights?

Moving violation in traffic court, NOT an crime.

If people get out there in traffic with “you” they deserve to suffer the
consequence.

> How do you plan to pay for police and street lights and paved roads if
> no one is forced to pay taxes?

Try a NEW ITEM sales tax, then it’s voluntary….. you pay tax only on
what you choose to buy.

Keep our kids on Spring Break in America to help economy

admin — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 13:15:08 +0000

On 3/20/2012 8:40 AM, I Will Not Comply wrote:
> Who are these pigs that spend millions in foreign countries while America’s deficit can never ever be repaid?

Victims of Obama and his Socialist minions….. I say their only
freedom was to take their money and leave, go far away and spend their
cash before Obama taxes and regulates it away from them. So what was
done was to back them into a corner so they have no choices, was it all
the regulations or the new taxes or the taxes Obama wants on capital
gains?

It’s nearly criminal to be wealthy in America, the unions/ACORN are
given a free pass to harass you on your front porch. You would be crazy
to leave all this…. right?

They took that choice to leave rather than to let Obama and Obamanomics
and Socialism rape them in the good old Socialist States of America.

Why would they go if this was *SUCH A POSITIVE ENVIRONMENT* It looks
like these Obama Socialists are confused by the fact people don’t want
to hang out in their *NEW TOXIC ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT* .

Get used to it, people will avoid the USA like the plague when they want
to spend money or make money or just have fun with money.

I’m NOT sure you understand the concept of CAPITALISM.

admin — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 02:46:48 +0000

On 3/19/2012 6:00 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>> Why do rightards want to send their hard earned money to the
>>>>>>> Ayatollah?
>>
>>>>>>> Whatever happened to rugged induhvidualism?
>>
>>>>>>> Just buy a CNG Honda Civic along with their $4,000 oil free
>>>>>>> compressor and fuel up at your house. In some states you will be
>>>>>>> paying one cent/ mile for fuel.
>>
>>>>>>> If you are trying to keep your carbon footprint down then buy
>>>>>>> that new fuel cell vehicle Mercedes has out on the market..
>>
>>>>>>> If you ain’t got no money then learn a skill, get a job and
>>>>>>> _make_ some money.
>>
>>>>>>> If you are too stupid to learn a skill then take the bus.
>>
>>>>>>> If you read the constitution you’ll see that it never ever
>>>>>>> mentions any constitutional right to send trillions of dollars to
>>>>>>> the Ayatolla or to burn liquid fossil fuels.
>>
>>>>>> Property is a RIGHT….
>>
>>>>> And money is property and therefore a right.
>>
>>>>> Why do rightards want to give their rights to the Ayatolla?
>>
>>>> The Republicans want to drill for OIL here in America…. it’s you
>>>> Liberals that want to buy oil from the Ayatollah and stop al oil pipe
>>>> lines and stop drilling in ANWR.
>>
>>> How would that help? Oil sells for the same price anywhere in the
>>> world. The price per barrel is the same in Japan, Europe, or the US,
>>> so unless gas is subsidized or taxed, it’s going to cost the same
>>> anywhere.
>>
>> Supply and demand….
>
> Where is this 100 million bbl/day supply that can move the price of
> oil down?
>
> We can make some money if you know where this oil is. Most geologists
> think the U.S. only has 2% of world oil reserves. You can upstage
> them!
>
>
> Bret Cahill

And MOST economists didn’t know we were going to have a mortgage
crash…. So we don’t need to bring in your NEW experts in oil, they
probably aren’t any smarter than your idiot HARVARD economists.

You’re using “phony” numbers.

Do we have only 2% of the total oil on the planet?

*OR*

Are we pumping only 2% of what the world is pumping… there is a big
difference.

And why would I care if we use oil from somewhere else to make even more
money, if I pay $100 for a barrel of oil and I sell all the products
back to those oil pumping NATIONS and it makes gasoline and plastic and
motor oil and all the other products that’s made from a barrel of oil
and resell all that product for $200.

All I did was create American Jobs, and make some money in my pocket.

I’m NOT sure you understand the concept of CAPITALISM.

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:40:35 +0000

On 3/19/2012 11:13 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F674AA8.1050703 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 3/19/2012 10:41 AM, Eddie Haskell wrote:
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F663394.6050909 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do Liberal-Socialists tell us that Health care costs 15% of the GDP,
>>>> they get all excited about it and call is wasted money….
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then those very same Liberal-Socialists will tell us that government
>>>> spending 23% of the GDP is NOTHING to be concerned with?
>>>
>>> Humm.. Because they can’t keep their lies straight?
>>>
>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>
>> That’s all I could come up with…. It’s typical Liberal duplicitous
>> lies.
>
> I think it may be kinda like when gas was high under Bush it was because
> Bush and Cheney were “big oil men,” but now that it’s high under Hussein
> “there is no silver bullet” and the president has little control over the
> price of gas.
>
> -Eddie Haskell

They do seem to make it up as they go along, the problem there is that
they don’t keep the lies all in row and the lies start conflicting with
one another.

Maybe they need a spreadsheet of lies so they can track their last lies
and try harder NOT to contradict their past lies with the NEW lies.

Sort of a *LIARS FLOW CHART*

NOT only are Liberal-Socialists stupid but they’re also unorganized.
You’d think that given the TRILLIONS of dollars they stole from
taxpayers they could organize their s&*$?%y philosophy better then
this…. they’re probably all on drugs.

do you think the austerity advocates might consider that maybe possibly they’re on the wrong track?

admin — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 16:39:26 +0000

On 2/20/2012 11:35 AM, R&*$?%d wrote:
> Sid9 wrote:
>> “Michael Gordge” wrote in message
>> news:cd581496-1785-462d-b1f9-964bbf0cf5d5 @&*$?%m3g2000pbi.googlegroups.com…
>>> On Feb 20, 9:49 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>> yea, i can understand your confusion. no capitalists wants
>>>> customers, no capitalists wants profit, priceless.
>>>
>>> Stupid c&*$?%t, capitalism is a political system based on free trade,
>>> free trade does not gaurantee profit, it gaurantees that the buyer
>>> and seller BOTH perceive a benefit, or a greater value than what
>>> they are trading,
>>>
>>> i.e. trading to obtain their own individual perception of a greater
>>> for lesser value.
>>>
>>> e.g. ewe give a dollar for a loaf of bread because ewe perceive you
>>> are obtaining a greater value and the seller would not let ewe have
>>> it for a dollar if they did not also percieve a greater value from
>>> the trade.
>>>
>>> It is only ewe nauseating nasal chanters who call the benefit, the
>>> greater value, “profit”.
>>>
>>> As ewe keep showing, ewe are at war with your own dopey f&*$?%g
>>> invented ideas on your dumb as all f&*$?%k meaning of capitalism.
>
>> Capitalism is not a political system, it’s an ECONOMIC system.
>
> Its both.
>
>> Capitalism is not based on free trade.
>
> Quite a bit of it is today.
>
>> Capitalism is based on private ownership.
>
> So is modern socialism as seen in even HongKong before it was handed back to china.
>
>

What is your NEW Definition of “NEW SOCIALISM”

In war the heroes can become villeins and the villeins can become heroes.

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:43:07 +0000

On 2/13/2012 7:22 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:29:20 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/13/2012 4:25 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F3843E3.2090201 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>> On 2/12/2012 2:56 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:21:03 -0800 (PST), Info Junkie
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you even attempt to reason out how your arguments would be
>>>>>>> applied or do
>>>>>>> you simply throw them out there assuming they will be relevant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m using your attempt to legally jutsify abortions as you refer to
>>>>>> “rights”.
>>>>>
>>>>> And doing a very bad job, BTW
>>>>>
>>>>> There can be no “attempt”–because abortions ARE legal withing the
>>>>> time limits of the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are legal because of RIGHTS which a woman/citizen has under the
>>>>> constitution.
>>>>
>>>> They are the Court appointed RIGHTS, they don’t exist in the
>>>> constitution.
>>>
>>> 9th Amendment.
>>>
>>>> If the court originally had the power to delegate NEW
>>>> POWERS to the Government and States and the PEOPLE, they might able to
>>>> have done that. But they don’t.
>>>>
>>>> What the court said is the Federal government has no power to stop a
>>>> woman from getting an abortion. If it is a Privacy issue.
>>>
>>> 10th Amendment.
>>>
>>> Care to show me where any such power to granted to the federal government?
>>>
>>> No?
>>>
>>> Then the Court was right and they have no such power.
>>>
>>>
>> Murder is illegal in all 50 States, you may NOT kill another Human Being.
>
> You may indeed kill another human being, but only in acts of war or in
> legal self defense of yourself or another.

Good luck with that, they have some Marines on trial for doing just that.

What you mean is that sometimes you can get away with killing, unless
someone wants to make an example of you or make a statement by indicting
you.

There was a little blond girl that was an army truck driver or something
and she was a hero that was captured and the Iraqis tortured her by
breaking her legs…. turns out she really wasn’t the fighting
machine that the “government” painted of her.

In war the heroes can become villeins and the villeins can become heroes.

You say kill the fetus for trespassing? ,,Seems like it’s cruel and unusual punishment.

admin — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:29:32 +0000

On 2/12/2012 10:07 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 01:58:26 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2012 1:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F3699F4.30301 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>> On 2/11/2012 2:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>> message news:4F35E516.8010204 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 2/10/2012 10:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” >>>>>>> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:4F35E0FF.9040307 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:28 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:10 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 3:21 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 12:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2012 12:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 10:08 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Section. 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taxes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States;…”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The USSC says that’s where congress’ power for general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, then such welfare can’t apply to individuals but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is “the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the general welfare of the nation, that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, spending on education for individuals would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Necessary and proper clause applies ONLY to previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *foregoing powers* it doesn’t create NEW powers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That clause can not expand “who” gets welfare, when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the words “United States”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we spend on education for individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it is the general Welfare of individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only a (necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare. So, I have not expanded the power – just provided a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a previously delegated power.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You’re saying that killing children in the streets to
>>>>>>>>>>>> exterminate the
>>>>>>>>>>>> poor is OK because the laws are necessary and proper to kill poor
>>>>>>>>>>>> children, to eradicate poverty in the United States?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, that would violate the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>>>>>> amendments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then where in the constitution is the power or any text that says a
>>>>>>>> fetus is NOT a person?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 14th Amendment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t see it….. explain.
>>>>>
>>>>> “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….”
>>>>>
>>>>> A fetus has neither been born, nor naturalized.
>>>>
>>>> So a fetus is an un-born person like someone is an un-naturalized person?
>>>
>>> Are you asking or telling?
>>>
>>>> But they are still persons aren’t they?
>>>
>>> Doesn’t seem to be the case in the Constitution.
>>>
>>>>> Of course, as I pointed out the issue of personhood is moot because that
>>>>> still doesn’t supersede the woman’s rights over her own body, much as
>>>>> you would like to dictate that.
>>>>
>>>> ["nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the *equal*
>>>> protection of the laws"]
>>>
>>> Yep…so why can the fetus violate the rights of the mother?
>>>
>>> Works both ways there, but I doubt you can see that.
>>>
>>>
>> You say kill the fetus for trespassing?
>>
>> Seems like it’s cruel and unusual punishment.
>
> Why do you think the rights of a fetus surpasses that of an adult
> woman?
Why does an adult man have to pay child support all the way through the
kids college?

You say kill the fetus for trespassing? ,,Seems like it’s cruel and unusual punishment.

admin — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:58:26 +0000

On 2/11/2012 1:23 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F3699F4.30301 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 2/11/2012 2:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F35E516.8010204 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>> On 2/10/2012 10:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” >>>>> wrote in
>>>>> message news:4F35E0FF.9040307 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:28 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:10 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 3:21 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 12:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2012 12:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 10:08 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Section. 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taxes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States;…”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The USSC says that’s where congress’ power for general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, then such welfare can’t apply to individuals but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is “the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the general welfare of the nation, that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, spending on education for individuals would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Necessary and proper clause applies ONLY to previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *foregoing powers* it doesn’t create NEW powers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That clause can not expand “who” gets welfare, when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the words “United States”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When we spend on education for individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then it is the general Welfare of individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is only a (necessary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare. So, I have not expanded the power – just provided a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a previously delegated power.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You’re saying that killing children in the streets to
>>>>>>>>>> exterminate the
>>>>>>>>>> poor is OK because the laws are necessary and proper to kill poor
>>>>>>>>>> children, to eradicate poverty in the United States?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No, that would violate the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>>>> amendments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then where in the constitution is the power or any text that says a
>>>>>> fetus is NOT a person?
>>>>>
>>>>> 14th Amendment.
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see it….. explain.
>>>
>>> “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….”
>>>
>>> A fetus has neither been born, nor naturalized.
>>
>> So a fetus is an un-born person like someone is an un-naturalized person?
>
> Are you asking or telling?
>
>> But they are still persons aren’t they?
>
> Doesn’t seem to be the case in the Constitution.
>
>>> Of course, as I pointed out the issue of personhood is moot because that
>>> still doesn’t supersede the woman’s rights over her own body, much as
>>> you would like to dictate that.
>>
>> ["nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the *equal*
>> protection of the laws"]
>
> Yep…so why can the fetus violate the rights of the mother?
>
> Works both ways there, but I doubt you can see that.
>
>
You say kill the fetus for trespassing?

Seems like it’s cruel and unusual punishment.

Who’s on unemployment?

admin — Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:54:45 +0000

On 2/11/2012 2:59 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 11:19:58 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/2012 12:18 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:13:33 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Without Medicare there’d be a lot more dead Americans.
>>>>
>>>> Or a lot fewer Hospital executives driving NEW Mercedes to the golf course.
>>>
>>> DUH—and you gave a good reason why HC reform is necessary
>>
>>
>> No such thing as “Health care”…..
>>
>>
>> I have personal medical needs that is all I am interested in fill when I
>> need them. If I can’t find them then that is NOT your problem.
>
> Hiring street people to fulfil those “need” isn’t a relevant issue,
> halfwit.
>
> However, it is because “we” have to look out for dumb a&*$?%s too
> stupid to understand that you are already paying a lot more than you
> should for what you buy/get—and that multiplied by millions is
> significant.

So you are the intellectual elites and only you elites understand what
we need, I’ve been saying that for years….

You are the pompous, omnipotent a&*$?%s that want to micromanage my
life for me and millions more lives because you’re convinced we’re so
beneath you. Thanks for confirming that point.

naturalized person?

admin — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:40:20 +0000

On 2/11/2012 2:29 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4F35E516.8010204 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 2/10/2012 10:42 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F35E0FF.9040307 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:28 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>> On 2/9/2012 7:10 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 3:21 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2012 12:01 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/8/2012 12:31 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 8, 2:06 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 10:08 PM, Josh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/7/2012 9:58 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Article 8 Clause 1 about general welfare:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Section. 8.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taxes,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States;…”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The USSC says that’s where congress’ power for general
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> welfare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, then such welfare can’t apply to individuals but only to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as a whole.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, I hardly think that any individual is “the United
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> States”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it is Necessary and Proper to apply to an individual as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> means for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the general welfare of the nation, that would make it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> constitutional.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, spending on education for individuals would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefit
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Necessary and proper clause applies ONLY to previously
>>>>>>>>>>>> delegated
>>>>>>>>>>>> *foregoing powers* it doesn’t create NEW powers.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That clause can not expand “who” gets welfare, when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>> already
>>>>>>>>>>>> defined by the words “United States”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When we spend on education for individuals
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then it is the general Welfare of individuals.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> that is only a (necessary
>>>>>>>>>>> and proper) *means* and the nation is the *end* recipient of the
>>>>>>>>>>> welfare. So, I have not expanded the power – just provided a
>>>>>>>>>>> means to
>>>>>>>>>>> a previously delegated power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You’re saying that killing children in the streets to
>>>>>>>> exterminate the
>>>>>>>> poor is OK because the laws are necessary and proper to kill poor
>>>>>>>> children, to eradicate poverty in the United States?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, that would violate the 5th and 14th Amendments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How does abortion not violate V and XIV?
>>>>>
>>>>> If a fetus is not a person, it would not violate either of those
>>>>> amendments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then where in the constitution is the power or any text that says a
>>>> fetus is NOT a person?
>>>
>>> 14th Amendment.
>>
>> I don’t see it….. explain.
>
> “All persons born or naturalized in the United States….”
>
> A fetus has neither been born, nor naturalized.

So a fetus is an un-born person like someone is an un-naturalized person?

But they are still persons aren’t they?

> Of course, as I pointed out the issue of personhood is moot because that
> still doesn’t supersede the woman’s rights over her own body, much as
> you would like to dictate that.

["nor deny to any *person* within its jurisdiction the *equal*
protection of the laws"]

Who’s on unemployment?

admin — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:19:58 +0000

On 2/11/2012 12:18 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 19:13:33 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Without Medicare there’d be a lot more dead Americans.
>>
>> Or a lot fewer Hospital executives driving NEW Mercedes to the golf course.
>
> DUH—and you gave a good reason why HC reform is necessary

No such thing as “Health care”…..

I have personal medical needs that is all I am interested in fill when I
need them. If I can’t find them then that is NOT your problem.

The Federal Reserve actions contradict Obama’s words in the Stateof the Union speech.

admin — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:16:49 +0000

On 1/26/2012 12:50 PM, jim wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>> On 1/26/2012 11:40 AM, jim wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good luck, and I NOW know what you do, you subcontract to the government
>>>> or fill-out regulation forms for the businesses in the private sector….
>>>
>>> I’m suspect most businesses can do their own paperwork. You make it
>>> sound like if all regulation and forms were eliminated there would
>>> be another 20 million people out of work.
>>
>> 20 million government “workers” or government welfare employed people
>> out of work. They are employees but really just collecting welfare for
>> showing up in an office.
>
> Yeah but those workers don’t exist in reality – its all in your head.
>
>
>>
>>> If forms and regulations were eliminated how much more production
>>> would businesses output? And who would they sell this additional
>>> production to?
>>
>> There would be NEW businesses just for a start and the existing business
>> would be able to concentrate their effort and energy and funds on
>> producing and distributing their service or product…. Each hour
>> wasted on government mandated items and avoiding excessive government
>> taxes and fines is an hour that can’t be used to be productive.
>
>
> You didn’t answer my question.
> You clearly can’t grasp what the question was.
>
> What good is more production and new business
> when you don’t have buyers
> for it??

Yes I did answer it, you cropped the answer and missed the meaning.

> Maybe if you tried running a business you
> would understand this stuff.

Been there done that.

> Instead, it is like trying
> to explain colors to
> a blind man.

Yes that’s right, I’m explaining what paint is to a blind man.

If you really read and comprehended what I was saying you would put it
all together and realize that if there are no wealthy to open and run
and pay taxes on businesses that hire people, we will all be too poor to
go out and eat.

Socialism and an all powerful government will make more of the working
poor, out of work poor. The incentive to work against my own best
interest is just not there when you and government want to take all the
benefits and micro manage my life.

Here is an idea for you Socialists, try getting a reverse income tax
where all people get to keep the first $75,000 tax free and the
remainder is taxed at 100%

Then just send each of us a e-Calendar that has a schedule to micro
manage our lives and diets and health care.

The Federal Reserve actions contradict Obama’s words in the State of the Union speech.

admin — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:26:30 +0000

On 1/26/2012 11:40 AM, jim wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>
>> Good luck, and I NOW know what you do, you subcontract to the government
>> or fill-out regulation forms for the businesses in the private sector….
>
> I’m suspect most businesses can do their own paperwork. You make it
> sound like if all regulation and forms were eliminated there would
> be another 20 million people out of work.

20 million government “workers” or government welfare employed people
out of work. They are employees but really just collecting welfare for
showing up in an office.

> If forms and regulations were eliminated how much more production
> would businesses output? And who would they sell this additional
> production to?

There would be NEW businesses just for a start and the existing business
would be able to concentrate their effort and energy and funds on
producing and distributing their service or product…. Each hour
wasted on government mandated items and avoiding excessive government
taxes and fines is an hour that can’t be used to be productive.

> I’ve seen no evidence of increased federal regulation or taxes in
> recent years. Maybe if you stopped dreaming about starting a
> business and actually tried it you would have a more realistic
> view of how it works.

Been in plenty of them up to the time Obama was elected and started
adding more. I decided to take an extended vacation. I am happy to
take time off and not help Obama screw me, I relax and earn less and pay
less tax and I live like I’m poor, until Obama and his Socialists are
gone or I drop dead. So I don’t need to work hard, just to hire people
like you, and that means Obama makes even less tax money.

Even better is that I don’t go out to restaurants, after all we should
all be poor right, and the poor don’t go out all the time? I have
avoided restaurants and movies like the plague, ever since Obama took
office. I always ate out before but my plan is to live poor so that we
will all be living alike and you have no reason to hate me, or to ask me
for a job or ask me to pay more tax, you can go create your own jobs.

> The restaurant business is probably one of the most govt
> inspected and regulated businesses there is, yet there
> doesn’t seem to be any shortage of restaurants.

And fewer successful ones every day….

> I don’t ever
> recall being turned away from a restaurant because it was
> too busy filling out forms.

The door is locked, they can’t feed you and fill out forms at the same time.

> Restaurant owners don’t start or end a business based on
> how much paperwork there is.

Or inspections and how many wash hands signs they have posted….
I’m telling you “I” am NOT interested in running hot dog cart today.
Much less putting $100,000 into a kitchen and then having no money left
over after bills because of the cost of regulations and taxes and the rest.

> They base those decisions on
> how many customers they expect will walk thru the doors.

And then they charge enough to stay opened and if they have to hire
extra people(and health insurance) or pay an outside business to do the
work like lawyers and maybe professional dietitian menu writers to
follow the regulations then the cost of the meal rises and fewer people
walk thru those doors.

Food taste is everything in a restaurant, how do you attract customers
when you have government telling what foods and seasoning you can serve?

Obama has created a financial mess.

admin — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:07:26 +0000

On 1/19/2012 3:35 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> This should not be surprising. Jesus supported separation of church
>>>> and state.
>>
>>> Ok, ok, the order of the 1st two was wrong.
>>
>>> http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cnn-rick-perry-end-campaign-141912…
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> I supposed you kick dogs when they are in the dirt too.
>
> You suppose wrong.
>
>> You cannot know how depressed many of us conservatives are [if I'm any
>> measure].
>
> 1. Jesus wasn’t about hate, especially hating Christians who happen
> to be black.
>
> 2. Jesus was clear that you should pray in private, not on the
> campaign stump.
>
>> If you have any assets [speaking to any fellow conservatives], you’d
>> better start sending them overseas to Swizerland or wherever now.
>> Think of this…when Obama has 4 more years,
>
> Who said Mitt can’t get elected? Rasmussen shows Romney beating Obama
> by 15 points.
>
>> and no longer any concern
>> over re-election, he is gonna have a field day with America…turning
>> it into another ‘People’s Republic’.
>
>> I’m not sure what we expected anyway. I mean, THEY own the media
>> now. That’s like an IV directly into the brainstream of the American
>> public [the younger, more naive set anyway...those that still watch
>> CNN and MSNBC].
>>
>> There are so many DIABOLICAL things going on just now, well,
>> DIABOLICAL speaks for itself. It is like EVIL must have it’s day or
>> something [in the world]. I can’t explain it [the perfect storm of
>> sweeping change to Communism-lite].
>
>> Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Hamilton…all of
>> ‘em…turning over in total disbelief in the graves I’m sure.
>>
>> America. Oh well, it was a good experiment while it lasted. Maybe
>> there’s a few last hurrays’ before she totall succumbs; how knows.
>> Something this big and powerful probably won’t die quickly. But the
>> liberal progressive has it by the Jugular now. Hispanics, blacks,
>> Jews, women [still can't figure them completely...why...e tu
>> Brute]…and the few white liberals…all combining for a NEW majority
>> that means the death Knell to the surviving progeny of the creators of
>> this nation.
>
>> We are the Alamo now…and no Sam Houston to save the later day.
>> Our children will curse us of course, when the promise of socialism
>> falls through and we find the same old tyrannies in it’s place we’ve
>> seen before. They’ll wonder why we weren’t stronger, why we ‘allowed’
>> this to happen.
>
> How can Obama be a socialist? He’s been in office 3 years and has yet
> to hike taxes on the rich.

Every dollar he has spent has to be paid for with TAXES, so all that
deficit spending $5trillion dollars, ate tax hikes.

You the tax payer will be called upon to pay for that and pay for all
the money printed by the Federal reserve in QE1/2/3

Obama has yet to get a budget passed…. even when his own party and
all his people ran the HOUSE/SENATE and the WhiteHouse.

Obama has created a financial mess.

>
> Bret Cahill
>

If you work for a living you pay the highest taxes! Romney Says His Effective Tax Rate Is ‘Probably’ 15%

admin — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:22:58 +0000

On 1/17/2012 12:42 PM, Sid9 wrote:
> Romney Says His Effective Tax Rate Is ‘Probably’ 15%
>
> By MICHAEL D. SHEAR and ASHLEY PARKER
>
> Published: January 17, 2012
>
> FLORENCE, S.C. – Under new pressure to release his personal income tax
> returns, Mitt Romney on Tuesday acknowledged that he pays an effective
> tax rate of about 15 percent because so much of his fortune comes from
> investments he made in the past.

So why do Liberals want a tax system which allows the politicians to
play favorites, we should all pay the same rates…. that would end
this little tax advantage. One way is to end Income tax….. and in
its place, put in a NEW ITEM SALES TAX and tax every one at 15%.

A Step Backward for Economic Freedom>>>they are in power and that power is where the wealth is coalescing around.

admin — Sun, 15 Jan 2012 17:39:05 +0000

On 1/15/2012 12:04 PM, NEON China BLUE wrote:
> In article , ray wrote:
>
>> More wealth is being concentrated to the top because there are more
>> products to purchase. Cell phones, computers, entertainment devices,
>
> No, idiot. In the 1970s central banks hit on the idea that they could control
> inflation by creating minirecessions every time the earned income workers
> started to earn more money as a group. When that happens interest rates are
> raised to force business growth to stall or reverse which increases unemployment
> which creates an excess supply of labour which devalues it which prevents earned
> income workers from getting higher wages as a group.
>
> The technique was perfected during the 1980s. Since then the combination of real
> and synthetic recessions has kept inflation low and earnings for most people
> lower.

I see the point, government screws it’s poor, but they always do that.
Those with power are always wanting to expand that power and become
more secure and wealthy.

> At the same time productivity has been leaping right along, increasing profits
> for businesses. Because of central bank created recessions, businesses are
> rarely forced to share those profits with wage earners (and most productivity
> improvements are done by the wage earners); instead the profits get funnelled
> into a small number of managers as capital gains and dividends (portfolio
> income) and capital investors.

You have correctly picked the Government and it’s government created
Central bank as the villain.

> Along with increasing portfolio income, taxes on portfolio income have decreased
> while taxes on earned income (except at the lowest wages where EIC kicks in)
> have increased. Other expenses have increased as businesses are able to shed
> benefits (due to artificial labour gluts).

The people in power are the problem, you have it backwards, you think
they are rich therefore they are in positions of power…. that’s
incorrect or backwards, they are in power and that power is where the
wealth is coalescing around.

Cut their power and you cut the reasons the rich are drawn to mingle
with the low paid government workers and buy them off. They are NOT of
the same wealth class so you just said. That means they are together
for some other reason than to socialize.

> So the economic necking should be no surprise.

As I said they are “friendships” of convenience, the wealthy secure more
power by intermingling with the people “YOU” are giving more power and
tax money. The correct plan would be to strip the government of power so
the wealthy class are less interested in sucking up to the government
worker class. When they(Government and the wealthy) combine and work
against us WE(the workers) we are beaten and with people like you that
want to give them more power to tax and more regulation power we are
truly at risk. This is a creation of your kind…. We have you to
thank for the current government power that has created this middle
class economic morass.

> People with earned income (most
> people) are impoverished until they’re finally poor enough to get the benefit of
> EIC, uncollectable debts, and welfare like food stamps and emergency room health
> care. People with portfolio income and/or vital specialised skills that can
> demand higher wages (few people) are enriched at the expense of everyone else.

I already posted the solution, drop all “profits” to the same 15% flat
rate as the rich pay for their “investments” and capital gains.

Or better yet, make it a 15% NEW ITEM sales tax and remove the Income
Tax from the constitution.

> One obvious solution is to increase taxes on the rich and use that money to
> provide services to everyone else.

That just gives the people you complained about…. MORE power.

> Unfortunately useful idiots like you have
> been brainwashed that higher taxes will be levied against you to provide for
> your fellow poor.

NO…. we realize that when the government is shooting people like
yourself in the head, giving the government more bullets is NOT the
solution.

You’re the one who’s brainwashed, why allow Government to raise taxes
and give those same government people that did this to us, more power
over us?

That just seems stupid.

US Marines defile dead Afghans on camera < << The respect and elite aspect will be replace with mediocrity and Social engineering.

admin — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:50:22 +0000

On 1/12/2012 2:01 PM, liberal wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:38 pm, Bible Studies with Satan
> wrote:
>> Ken wrote:
>>> Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>>> US Marines defile dead Afghans on camera
>>
>>>>
>>
>>> Is this any worse than having someone cut your head off while your arms
>>> are tied behind you? I also seem to recall bodies being hung from a
>>> bridge and having been set afire. As far as I am concerned, “Piss on them.”
>>
>>> Semper Fi
>>
>> Agreed! US Marines are no better than Arab a&*$?%s.
>
> Many former Marines are now mercenaries: kill for money.

Wasn’t it Liberals that want to allow everyone to serve in the military?
If they can’t toss out G&*$?%s and degenerates that f&*$?%k animals and wife
beaters and porn stars and pedophiles, then you have to expect that you
could get *WHAT YOU WISHED FOR*

Actually I would expect the GOOD MARINES to leave in larger numbers as
the mentally and sexually deficient and disturbed numbers rise. The
respect and elite aspect will be replace with mediocrity and Social
engineering.

Te Democrat Socialists are creating a *NEW MILITARY THAT’S MORE*
*REPRESENTATIVE OF AMERICA*, how do you like it so far.

This is what happens when you turn the military into another government
welfare jobs program for the hopelessly unemployed dregs of society.

>> –
>> new video!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-Px2Hi7ZA4

Alaska’s credit rating is A Rated due to Govenor Palin’s Trickle-Down Tutalage

admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:47:37 +0000

On 1/9/2012 12:28 AM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
> On 1/8/2012 11:41 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jan 2012 19:20:22 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Name a policy that Obama has implemented that caused ANY of the
>>>> present disaster
>>>>
>>> Dodd Frank….
>>
>> Dodd/Frank was SUBVERTED by the Republican congress
>>
>> Dodd and Frank were minority members
>>
>> Explain how they implemented the law.
>>
> A recent report states that 95% of companies covered by Dodd Frank are
> not in compliance.
>
> Repugs in the House watered penalties down so far that defiance pays.
>
> Larry

The LAW simply created more government regulatory agencies and NEW
powers to write 10,000++ pages of Regulations…. the endless
regulations have STOPPED any new interest in starting a business in the
USA.

Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you!

admin — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:47:56 +0000

On 1/6/2012 6:33 PM, Bull in a China Blue Shop wrote:
> In article <4F074A1B.8010109 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com>,
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2012 1:59 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>> On 1/5/2012 5:16 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 1/5/2012 8:06 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>>> On 1/4/2012 5:31 PM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Recess appointments have been occurring for years, dumbfuck.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don’t know what a Marxist is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The difference is they actually happen during a recess….
>>>
>>> …as Congress is in now.
>>>
>>
>>
>> euphemistically I might say the Senate is always “out to lunch” but on
>> the books they were technically in session when Obama made his recess
>> appointment.
>
> I look forward to the Republicans explaining during an election year why they
> were blocking a consumer advocate.
>
Because it’s a government boondoggle and one that would grow and cost
more and more and more LIKE MEDICARE and it would be cheaper for the
consumers to close the NEW government department and accept any small
loss they have after suing the the companies cheating them.

Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you!

Still…down sizing, layoffs better than a Boobuh bailout

admin — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 15:08:29 +0000

On 12/27/2011 10:02 AM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
> Sears to close 100 to 120 Kmart, Sears stores
>
> Retailer blames terrible holiday season, especially for big-ticket
> items
>
> NEW YORK — Sears Holdings Corp. plans to close between 100 and 120
> Sears and Kmart stores after poor sales during the holidays, the most
> crucial time of year for retailers.
>

Surprise, Surprise, Surprise Sargent Carter….

I’ve been telling people for all three years of Obama that he wasn’t
going solve our problems with HIS SOCIALISM and REDISTRIBUTION.

The Real Estate crash and burn is still getting worse as real Estate
prices continue to fall.

What ever the Question is, Socialism is NOT the answer.

I’ll show you mine if you show us yours?

admin — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 21:51:36 +0000

On 12/23/2011 3:15 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 13:17:34 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>> There is the Constitution…. it delegates the powers.
>>>
>>> Interpreted by who?
>>
>> Used by the courts, but written and interpreted by the Legislature.
>
> That’s Crazy talk ! !
>
> Legislatures enact law….all kinds.

do you understand what you write when you are a Legislator?

You have to understand what you write so that you can get the law to
mean exactly what you have written…. That way it needs NO further
interpretation, just comprehension.

But should others have difficulty with the law then the law needs to be
rewritten and only the Legislature can do that.

Refer to Article I, Section 1. of the U.S. constitution

> When challenges to the law arise, the judiciary is called on to hear
> cases coming before it. Certain issues of laws (all kinds) can have
> issues that need to be resolved via an appelate system.

Jurisdiction is one….. if it is NOT a legitimate legally created law
they have NO jurisdiction. So a law that I write would be out of the
courts jurisdiction because it is NOT really a U.S. law.

I suppose they could try to say it’s unconstitutional since I don’t have
the constitutional power to write a law. But the constitution has no
provision for a law being unconstitutional.

It therefore must be a jurisdiction problem. The law would not fall
with in the supreme courts jurisdiction(being as I can’t write Federal
law) and they would NOT hear the case.

> IF those laws rise to levels of issues of enough significance, the
> USSC can CHOSE to hear them if THEY determine a case merits an
> “interpretation”. (judicial review)
>

They don’t “interpret” the law or the constitution. They rule on a case
and file opinions.

> Cases involving enacted law can, and does, bring challenges as to the
> constitutionality of any, or ALL of the legislation.

What is “Constitutionality”…. Define it.

> The court MAY choose to rule the entire act unconstitutional;
How can they rule on something like “unconstitutional” when the
constitution doesn’t allow for anything to be unconstitutional, the
constitution treats this as a jurisdictional problem. What court has
what power and The federal Supreme court can’t hear a case derived from
a law that is not a legally instituted Federal law.

What act or article or amendment or law? And what does
unconstitutional mean and where in the constitution did it bestow that
power onto the courts? I see the part where the courts can accept or
reject jurisdiction but I see nothing about them making laws or making
constitutional amendments or declaring laws unconstitutional.

You have affirmed what the court says it can do but NOT told us under
what act or article or amendment or law, they are given power to do it.

> , or,
> Rule that parts may be unconstitutional,

NO they can’t “rule” that part of a law is unconstitutional. They
either take the case and the law or they claim that it’s NOT within the
courts jurisdiction. If they take the case then the law it is based on
is legitimate.

> OR—made a determination of
> what the legislature “intended” if it isn’t clear.

The Legislature determines what they intend when they write the law.
There is NO more intent beyond the text, if it is vague then the text
needs to be clarified. That is done by the Legislature. Until that
time the law could not be within the courts jurisdiction because they
can’t tell you what its intent is.

> The legislature CAN get rid of the law—-and start over. Nothing
> says they have to keep it

Exactly, because the Legislature has all the power to legislate.
Article. I.
Section. 1.

*All* legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of
the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.

NO courts are given legislative power.

>
> BUT—when the Court “interprets” what the law “means”, or what PART
> of the law means, or what is INTENDED (or would happen)—That’s tough
> s&*$?%t.
>

Actually it is NOT being tried by the law that you were charged with, if
it has been interpreted it is a different law. And that new law the
interpreted law is explained to the jury AFTER you have been arrested
for the crime. So the NEW law is ex-post facto and according to the
constitution that is NOT allowed.

>> When a court can’t use a written law because it’s vague or
>> unintelligible, they can throw out the case and that will either force
>> congress to fix it, or they can ignore it and get voted out of office.
>
> The case wouldn’t have gotten to the USSC UNLESS the case was a valid
> issue case.

Sure….

>
> There are more than one option (like the silly one you gave) in
> dealing with a law.
>
> Since 200 years of application of the doctrine of review–there has
> never been an “either, or” demand–simply because: “The legisature
> wrote it”

200 years of breaking the law makes it legal?

> The whole purpose of Marbury was to eliminate the legislature’s power
> to enact unconstitutional law. Simply enacting law (by a legislature)
> does not make it a constitutional law.

The purpose was to find out if the Supreme Court had Jurisdiction.
They decided they had no jurisdiction because the laws used to base the
case on were NOT binding because they violated the constitution. The
laws and therefore the legal case was out of the jurisdiction of the
supreme court. So they decided the law was conflicting in how it was
created or was otherwise in conflict with other constitutional powers or
RIGHTS. All they could do was to say the case had no merit in that
court. But they added their “opinion” that suggested the law was
unconstitutional, and that created a new class of laws. They are laws
that the court can’t hear cases on because they don’t have any power to
hear cases outside of Federal powers and laws that are NOT ligament are
outside of Federal powers.

> The entire idea behind the bullshit you’re doing is–that power was
> stripped away from states, corporations and the wealth class to abuse
> rights and priviliges that money and power control.
>
> David McIntosh (as a congressman) hated the fact that the central
> government had the “right” to negate power of a state (or government)
> to pass and enforce laws that HE wanted.
>
> His excuse was rooted in “literal interpretation” or “originalism” and
> that hasn’t been accepted doctine in the 30+ years he’s been crying
> and whining.
>
> H

Call it what you want but the truth is NOT a “conceptual choice” What I
am saying is simply that the courts can’t make Legislation, it’s written
in the constitution in plain black and white.

If you think lying and ignoring laws and constitutional amendments is
the way to run a government then that’s your own political choice but
when you base your entire legal system on lies, it tells me that it’s
NOT a legal system at all, it’s a political arm of the political powers.

If you make everything political you will always have a political outcome.

I’ll show you mine if you show us yours?

admin — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 14:37:06 +0000

On 12/23/2011 8:50 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:28:19 -0700, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:22:15 -0500, NoBody wrote:
>>

+——————————————————————————–+
This was my text Beam Me Up Scotty and I am proud of my genius that
share. So please get the attributes correct, I get this information
correct you should at least get who wrote what was right attributed
correctly.

>>>> Point out the text in the constitution that gave the courts the Power to
>>>> “interpret” or “add” to laws to mean anything they want and return that
>>>> new interpretation back to the legal system as a NEW law.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can quote the text where the constitution says *ALL* legislative power
>>>> resides with congress.
+———————————————————————————+

>>
>> Marbury v Madison
>>
>> Show that’s been overturned.
>
> You’re again dishonestly attributing something to me I never said.
> Either learn to use your newsgreader or get a better one.

I honestly think that some of these Liberals can’t get anything correct
NOT even things that are simple like attributes…….

Cahill attributes his quotes to a bunch of people that are wrong.

I’ll show you mine if you show us yours?

admin — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:17:01 +0000

On 12/22/2011 1:28 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 08:22:15 -0500, NoBody wrote:
>
>>> Point out the text in the constitution that gave the courts the Power to
>>> “interpret” or “add” to laws to mean anything they want and return that
>>> new interpretation back to the legal system as a NEW law.
>>>
>>>
>>> I can quote the text where the constitution says *ALL* legislative power
>>> resides with congress.
>
> Marbury v Madison
>
> Show that’s been overturned.
>

That isn’t text in the constitution…..

It isn’t even in any law.

Where is it written?

It must be an *OPINION* which is NOT legislation or a constitutional
amendment.

Which means the court is suggesting a legislative change in the “REAL” law.

They /had/have/ NO power to grant any NEW powers to the government.

The constitution still says ALL legislative power resides with the
congress. Did you have an *AMENDMENT* to the constitution that has
modified or changed that in any way?

The *only* way to change that text in the constitution is to use an
amendment to annul it or to modify it. The court could try to call it
unconstitutional and yet they have NOT ruled it unconstitutional to give
“all” Legislative power to the Legislature.

Even if they did say it’s unconstitutional they have zero power to
decide who does have the legislative power. It would have to be
written in the constitution as an amendment….. you see there is no
way out.

The constitution is a closed document that only allows for change in the
constitution by using amendments to the constitution, You don’t delete
and you don’t create external powers to modify it internally.

It’s a self contained document that needs no outside rewriting, what is
in it is all that it is. Any outside reforms or tests or addendum are
without power to change what is already text in the constitution except
the ability of the court to find something unconstitutional. Which only
means congress/States has allowed a conflict of interest in the document
that needs congress/States to rectify the conflict.

What did the courts find unconstitutional in Marbury v Madison?

Did they strike down part of the constitution as unconstitutional?
Because I don’t see it. Had that happened then congress would have
acted with an Amendment to make that part constitutional or amend it
from being active like was done to Prohibition and slavery.

I’ll show you mine if you show us yours?

admin — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:33:34 +0000

On 12/21/2011 3:21 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:52:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> You “point out” that what you believe is unconstittional–is nothing
>>> more than pissing about rulings you don’t agree with.
>>
>> Wrong, those rulings are unconstitutional because the courts have no
>> power to give any NEW powers to government.
>
> Not even a grade school argument
>
> Courts interpret laws passed by congress
>
> Courts interpret cases, civil and criminal, coming before them
>
> Enacted legislation is “law” and can be challenged in courts. Rulings
> of what enacted law ‘means”—IS the domain of the Courts
>
> If a NEW LAW is enacted by the legislature, the court didn’t make it
> but DO have the authority to interpret what it means. That is the
> function of the Justice system
>
>>> The ONLY institution allowed to determine what is constitutional or
>>> not–is the USSC.
>
>> You just said it, they have NO power to redefine and interpret…. all
>> they can do is one thing, they can declare a law or POWER
>> unconstitutional and that’s it.
>

Point out the text in the constitution that gave the courts the Power to
“interpret” or “add” to laws to mean anything they want and return that
new interpretation back to the legal system as a NEW law.

I can quote the text where the constitution says *ALL* legislative power
resides with congress.

I’ll show you mine if you show us yours?

NYC-Paid Investigators Buy Guns Online Across US

admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 16:44:19 +0000

On 12/14/2011 8:13 PM, Bob Crachet wrote:
> On 12/14/2011 7:35 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>> December 14, 2011
>>
>>
>> NYC-Paid Investigators Buy Guns Online Across US
>>
>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>>
>> NEW YORK (AP) – A city investigation caught online gun sellers around the
>> country illegally handing over assault weapons to people who said they
>> couldn’t pass a background check, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday,
>> just days after a police officer was shot to death with an illegal gun.

The Liberals in government have failed to do their job in so many ways,
that this is an expected failure.

Just as Liberal Government has failed to secure the southern border of
the USA.

Eric Holder failed to enforce existing gun laws.

Stop all new law creation until the executive branch of government
agrees to enforce all the laws that they have been entrusted to equally
enforce.

More correlations for the Greenists

admin — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 18:58:49 +0000

On 12/5/2011 1:33 PM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article
> @&*$?%g21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> “erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com” wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 12:52 pm, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 05:40:18 -0800 (PST), Dawlish wrote:
>>>> On Dec 4, 10:41 am, “Giga2″ < "Giga2" >>>> end)ho…@yahoo.co> wrote:
>>>>> “Dawlish” wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> news:5c5c2a37-6e57-469c-a122-578ef4827a1f @&*$?%w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com…
>>>>> On Dec 3, 9:25 pm, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Correlations are “science” in the AGW hype.
>>>
>>>>>> Here you go, Greenists: A new correlation for every day of the week:
>>>
>>>>>> http://www.correlated.org/
>>>
>>>>>> Hurry! It could be *you* who finds the next trend to hype.
>>>
>>>>> WTF is a greenist?
>>>
>>>>> Try these two correlations 0.87 and 0.91. CO2 and temperature 1880-
>>>>> present. Both at the 99%+ significance level.
>>>
>>>>> =BS
>>>
>>>>> Now explain them.
>>>
>>>> Two of us already have. Now do the calculations yourself, if you can
>>>> and see if you find bullshit……………..or if you find exactly
>>>> what AGW and I found – very strong correlations which show very high
>>>> statistical significance.
>>>
>>> Very strong correlations show very high statistical significance
>>> *only* if the relationship is meaningful.
>>>
>>> Statistical significance is not the same as scientific significance.
>>>
>>> Large correlation in a minor factor may not be significant in an
>>> overall effect.
>>>
>>> Scientific significance is not the same as political significance.
>>>
>>> Scientific significance is not the same as economical significance.
>>>
>>> Scientific significance is not the same as social significance.
>>>
>>> Few people outside the cult don’t give a rat’s a&*$?%s about religious
>>> dogma based on cooked numbers and hysterics.
>>>
>>> What was your point?
>>>
>>> No support from Greenists in this thread. Have they stopped listening
>>> to you?
>>
>> Correlation is necessary (but not sufficient) for causation.
>>
>> Global temperatures are correlated with CO2 levels. They are not
>> correlated with anything else that could conceivably be a cause.
>
> … like the clearing of forests, urban development? The AGW crowd likes
> to deny those influences and wants to blame the minuscule amount of CO2
> in the atmoaphere.

NEW Pavement, lack of erupting volcanoes…. lava vents at the ocean
floor, lack of cloud cover, Magnetic/Electrical/RF interference with the
ionosphere, Nuclear background radiation, micro black holes and/or
white/dark matter or Gamma rays from a star explosion years ago. Space
trash and gravitational orbits of the trash and comets and moons and the
the planets and sun and Galaxy stressing the earth. Humans own bio mass
and heat. Inter dimensional Energy leaking from a time or place we are
simultaneously standing in.

Loss of atmosphere into space….

ACORN, George Soros and the core of the Democratic Party is materiallysupports OWS anarchy

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:20:25 +0000

On 11/22/2011 3:03 PM, MattB wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:48:08 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 8:42 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:19:30 -0500, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:46:58 -0700, RichTravsky
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/17/2011 7:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/17/2011 11:43 AM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ACORN does not exist, kooker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The son of ACORN
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACORN II
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Ghost of ACORN
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACORN REVISITED
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ACORN HAS A NEW NAME… BUT THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the new name?
>>>>
>>>> The New Party
>>>> 2:00
>>>
>>> Glenn Beck.
>>>
>>> Well, that proves beyond doubt that you are an ignorant nut.
>>
>> Obviously you have proof that no people that worked at ACORN have
>> migrated to this other group that Glen Beck‘s “GUEST” was discussing
>> and tracking?
>>
>>
>> Share it with us….
>
>
> Well Glenn Beck is a nutcase. Well documented.
>
> Tell me something. If someone that has done work for the Tea party
> attends a OWS meeting does that mean the Tea party supports OWS or has
> direct control of OWS?
>
> I’ve gone to several Tea party meeting now and although I do agree
> with a few ideas they have can’t totally support them. Will admit
> Beck is trying to bring back McCarthyism to a degree. Don’t think it
> will work. Maybe Fox will hack all OWS phones now.

Then Obama will hear phones at FOX listening to phones at OWS listening
to phones at FOX won’t he…. The echo will drive the government crazy.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:54:55 +0000

On 11/22/2011 2:34 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECBF124.1050201 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 9:26 PM, Milt wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>
>>>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without,
>>>>>>> dumbass. So
>>>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>
>>>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>
>>>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>
>>>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>
>>>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>
>>>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>
>>>>>> –
>>>>
>>>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t
>>>> that
>>>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>>>
>>> Poverty was getting better before we hit neocon-land.
>>>>
>>>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>>>
>>> We spend less and there’s more poverty.
>>>>
>>>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes
>>>> had
>>>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944
>>>>
>>>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>>>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>>>> something else.
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Forget that you just pulled the number out of your a&*$?%s. Percent of GDP
>>> has nothing to do with this issue. When poverty is high, revenues as
>>> percent of GDP will always be higher, because there are fewer
>>> taxpayers, and thus less revenue.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That didn’t make sense, but I think I see what you were trying to say.
>>
>> did you mean when poverty is high, revenues will be low, due to
>> unemployment?
>>
>> Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
>> they fire thousands of people. We just went through that, when
>> everyone trimmed the payroll in order to prepare for the Obama created
>> Depression.
>>
>> THAT SAID….
>>
>> The GDP will be an issue because it has a ceiling and that is 18%, raise
>> and lower Federal taxes all you want but you will end up with an average
>> within a few points of that 18% average.
>>
>> It’s just how history has come to pass. Given that truth, when
>> government spends more than 18% it is going to be long term deficit
>> spending.
>>
>> Raise taxes higher to get more than an average 18%… and you will be
>> suppressing economic activity and gaining no real revenue. The so
>> called boom from high 94% taxes was an average 2% and that slowed the
>> economy to the point that they were soon lowering those taxes to
>> encourage economic growth and the fall in Federal taxes continued in
>> incremental steps up and down until it was at 38%
>>
>> Look at the 1920 Depression, taxes rise to 70% then crash of the
>> economy, then the fall of the taxes. They taxed higher until it
>> crashed. Then they lowered taxes until it started to grow.
>>
>> Here at the graph below is deficit spending in RED and the actual Total
>> Federal Revenue is in BLUE.
>>
>> NOTICE THAT THE 94% tax rate in 1944 didn’t raise enough revenue to
>> cover the deficit spending and it crushes the economy/GDP. 1943 the
>> previous year to 1944 the growth of the GDP was 30-40 billion dollars
>> per year and after the 94% tax rate the GDP growth was a muted 8-10
>> billion dollars. The GDP went from a 16% growth in 1943 to 6% in 1944.
>>
>> It was a 6% growth rate after the tax rate was known to increase to a
>> top rate of 94%….. That indicates a 10% loss in growth of the GDP
>> from before 1943 to after 1944 and that correlates to the rise in the
>> federal income tax top rates.
>>
>> http://prntscr.com/46m9e
>>
>>
>>
>> As I have been saying, the high taxes will slow growth(with no
>> sustainable revenue benefit) and even today we see the threat of new
>> high taxes has muted the growth. We will NOT grow until Obama the
>> Socialist “redistribution” King (Obama) is removed from his throne.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> False.
> That’s St Reagan‘s and Grover Norquist’s bullshit all over again.

I see all your proof and I have to say your extensive facts and flawless
logic based on your proof was awesome.

You have reaffirmed my beliefs about Liberals.

ACORN, George Soros and the core of the Democratic Party is materiallysupports OWS anarchy

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 19:48:08 +0000

On 11/21/2011 8:42 PM, 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:19:30 -0500, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 21:46:58 -0700, RichTravsky
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2011 7:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>>> On 11/17/2011 11:43 AM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ACORN does not exist, kooker.
>>>>
>>>> The son of ACORN
>>>>
>>>> ACORN II
>>>>
>>>> The Ghost of ACORN
>>>>
>>>> ACORN REVISITED
>>>>
>>>> ACORN HAS A NEW NAME… BUT THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME.
>>>
>>> What is the new name?
>>
>> The New Party
>> 2:00
>
> Glenn Beck.
>
> Well, that proves beyond doubt that you are an ignorant nut.

Obviously you have proof that no people that worked at ACORN have
migrated to this other group that Glen Beck‘s “GUEST” was discussing
and tracking?

Share it with us….

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 94%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:59:48 +0000

On 11/21/2011 9:26 PM, Milt wrote:
> On Nov 21, 5:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>>>> –
>>
>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>> now.
>>
>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>
> Poverty was getting better before we hit neocon-land.
>>
>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>
> We spend less and there’s more poverty.
>>
>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>
>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944
>>
>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>> something else.
>>
>> –
>
> Forget that you just pulled the number out of your a&*$?%s. Percent of GDP
> has nothing to do with this issue. When poverty is high, revenues as
> percent of GDP will always be higher, because there are fewer
> taxpayers, and thus less revenue.

That didn’t make sense, but I think I see what you were trying to say.

did you mean when poverty is high, revenues will be low, due to
unemployment?

Even that idea has no merit. Since corporations can be profitable when
they fire thousands of people. We just went through that, when
everyone trimmed the payroll in order to prepare for the Obama created
Depression.

THAT SAID….

The GDP will be an issue because it has a ceiling and that is 18%, raise
and lower Federal taxes all you want but you will end up with an average
within a few points of that 18% average.

It’s just how history has come to pass. Given that truth, when
government spends more than 18% it is going to be long term deficit
spending.

Raise taxes higher to get more than an average 18%… and you will be
suppressing economic activity and gaining no real revenue. The so
called boom from high 94% taxes was an average 2% and that slowed the
economy to the point that they were soon lowering those taxes to
encourage economic growth and the fall in Federal taxes continued in
incremental steps up and down until it was at 38%

Look at the 1920 Depression, taxes rise to 70% then crash of the
economy, then the fall of the taxes. They taxed higher until it
crashed. Then they lowered taxes until it started to grow.

Here at the graph below is deficit spending in RED and the actual Total
Federal Revenue is in BLUE.

NOTICE THAT THE 94% tax rate in 1944 didn’t raise enough revenue to
cover the deficit spending and it crushes the economy/GDP. 1943 the
previous year to 1944 the growth of the GDP was 30-40 billion dollars
per year and after the 94% tax rate the GDP growth was a muted 8-10
billion dollars. The GDP went from a 16% growth in 1943 to 6% in 1944.

It was a 6% growth rate after the tax rate was known to increase to a
top rate of 94%….. That indicates a 10% loss in growth of the GDP
from before 1943 to after 1944 and that correlates to the rise in the
federal income tax top rates.

http://prntscr.com/46m9e

As I have been saying, the high taxes will slow growth(with no
sustainable revenue benefit) and even today we see the threat of new
high taxes has muted the growth. We will NOT grow until Obama the
Socialist “redistribution” King (Obama) is removed from his throne.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:08:30 +0000

On 11/21/2011 7:48 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECAD644.5000103 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>
>>> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
>>> now.
>>
>> So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
>> a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?
>>
>> It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.
>>
>>
>> Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….
>>
>>
>> Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
>> almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944.
>>
>> so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
>> see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
>> something else.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> So you’re saying?
> His words are clear and do not need interpretation from you

I’m saying he’s NOT very consistent.

So I’m not sure which story he wants to stick with…..

I’m awaiting any clarification that he cares to make.

Or NONE at all and he decides to go with me picking between his
conflicting statements.

Children are made into sheep and easy targets for the gay sexual predators by the Schools that teach them that it’s HATE and it’s illegal to dislike and a HATE CRIME to defend themselves from the gay predators…

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:49:45 +0000

On 11/21/2011 4:32 PM, @&*$?%gmail.com">erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 21, 3:09 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 10:46 AM, erschroedin…@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 5:20 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>> Children are made into sheep and easy targets for the gay sexual
>>>> predators by the Schools that teach them that it’s HATE and it’s illegal
>>>> to dislike and a HATE CRIME to defend themselves from the gay predators…
>>
>>>> This is the underlying problem with government schools, they teach the
>>>> Democrat-Socialist agenda hidden as an under the desk education that is
>>>> forced on all students.
>>
>>>> On 11/19/2011 8:20 AM, (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)
>>
>>>> http://www.TravelForPay.org wrote:
>>
>>>>> [[[[ RESOURCE POST: *FACTS* Don't Change.
>>>>> And Constantly *Repeating* Them is DOOMING
>>>>> the Bigots' IRRATIONAL Hate-Agendas! ]]]]
>>
>>>>> Egalitarians are INTELLIGENT enough to know that once FACTS
>>>>> that are *devastating* to all bigots and their hate-agendas –
>>>>> especially the ones that seek to *victimize* TENS of MILLIONS of
>>>>> people by blocking them from (1) having across-the-board EQUAL
>>>>> rights for all LGBT people, including Marriage Equality… for abso-
>>>>> lutely NO good reason, and
>>
>>>> We see one reason that jumped out at us this month, g&*$?%s that are after
>>>> young boys in the public showers…..
>>
>>>> If G&*$?%s are different and need Gay Hate crime laws and need gay
>>>> Marriage, then they also need *GENDER SPECIFIC FACILITIES* . and need to
>>>> be kept out of locker rooms for heterosexuals. The G&*$?%s need a (G) for
>>>> their sex on their drivers license. Anyone known to have gay sex should
>>>> be so designated permanently. Then when caught in a boys facilities
>>>> they can be chastised just as boys slipping into the girls bath room
>>>> are, and marked as sexual predators or stalkers. As Men hanging out in
>>>> the girls bathrooms are.
>>
>>>> Then there’s military bunks boys camps….. and other NOT so private
>>>> areas where g&*$?%s can stalk and cruise for vulnerable situations with
>>>> boys or men. G&*$?%s RIGHTS have been placed above the RIGHTS of hetero
>>>> sexual men…. HATE LAWS have replaced social taboos that once kept
>>>> g&*$?%s from attacking/molesting young men are NOW making hetero sexual men
>>>> targets for older gay sexual predators. A fist was once used to
>>>> warn-off g&*$?%s and it is NOW a HATE CRIME. Children are made into sheep
>>>> and easy targets for the gay sexual predators by the Schools that teach
>>>> them that it is illegal to dislike or defend themselves from the gay
>>>> predators…
>>
>>>> It is the *government that has created the NEW PROBLEMS* through social
>>>> engineering.
>>
>>>>> (2) IRRATIONALLY seeking to hurl the
>>>>> USAback into the pre-1973 Dark Ages of FORCING girls and wom-
>>>>> en to gestate WORTHLESS-when-UNwanted pregnancies to term
>>>>> against their will (a very real and unconscionable 9-month-long
>>>>> form of RAPE)…have been marshalled and presented WELL –
>>>>> the BEST way to put those resources to use is to RE-PRESENT
>>>>> them *every* time that it is appropriate to do so.
>>
>>>> The dark ages when they killed babies? Yes that is true, we are in the
>>>> darkest of the baby killing ages where millions are killed despite the
>>>> FACT that we have drugs and condoms and sterilization and more that can
>>>> prevent the fertilization and creation of a person.
>>
>>>> If you can call a corporation a person, isn’t it obvious that a human
>>>> baby in or out of a uterus is a person. First of all there is no
>>>> specific mention that a person can NOT reside in a uterus. Secondly the
>>>> GPS coordinates of a person inside the united States territory can be in
>>>> a uterus. There is no distinction for person-hood. A person is a live
>>>> human inside of the united states.
>>
>>>> A “citizen” is a person born inside the united states.
>>
>>>> NOTE the distinction that a citizen is “born” inside the united States
>>>> or naturalized after their birth, but they are still a person if they
>>>> are in the united states and are NOT a citizen.
>>
>>>> It isn’t a question of what “you” want, it’s a question of another
>>>> persons RIGHTS….. You get tired of your kids you can *NOT* just kill
>>>> them under our constitution because they are persons with RIGHTS. As
>>>> is a person in the uterus.
>>
>>>> The FACT you have committed a million murders a year is no reason to
>>>> keep murdering a million children a year.
>>
>>>> Vegans that can’t eat meat because they love all the little animals are
>>>> a measure of your hypocrisy as they are mostly Democrat-Socialists that
>>>> are willing to kill a human life but then make such a stink over their
>>>> NOT killing animals to eat.
>>
>>>> The ignorance of the LEFT-WING LOONS is colossal.
>>
>>> Most child sexual abuse occurs from heterosexual adults.
>>
>> Most hand gun murders are black on black….. so why do we need hate
>> crime laws? You Liberals aren’t very consistent with your support of
>> laws. Sort of hypocritical aren’t you?
>>
>> Is that what you are saying when you say, “most sex crimes are by
>> heterosexuals”
>>
>> 98% of people are heterosexual.
>> 17% are black
>> 2% are gay
>>
>> ALL ARE CITIZENS and all need to be equal under the law.
>>
>> The problem with your scenario is that we need equal protection under
>> the law and g&*$?%s are less than 2% of the population but still need to
>> have laws that include them as a special hate law does.
>
> Sure, like Jews — painting a swastika on a synagogue is different
> from painting a heart on a bridge overpass.

What is the difference, both may be symbols of groups that hate me?

Except that I have an (M) on my drivers license…. why is a (G) on a
g&*$?%s license like a star on a Jew? I fail to see the problem or
similarity, aren’t they proud of being GAY?

It’s you that says they are different and need hate laws and marriage
laws special for them. I am suggesting they also should have their own
designation on their drivers license.

> And special laws — what about the special laws that don’t let g&*$?%s
> wed, inherit, visit partners in the hospital, etc?

NO such thing, marriage is/was NOT designed for g&*$?%s and can’t be
changed to work for both g&*$?%s and heterosexuals….. Marriage has
meanings to heterosexuals that created it that g&*$?%s simply can’t
appreciate or fulfill.

Calling two g&*$?%s married is a joke, and neither the person calling them
married nor the g&*$?%s that are able to understand what marriage is about
or they would NOT make the error of calling it gay marriage.

Gay Marriage is an oxymoron. Since the only way it works is if a Gay
man and a L&*$?%n woman get married and that is between them and their
own conscience as to whether they are entering into it for the right
reasons.

If they want to visit in the hospital they can make the proper legal
preparations to solve that *legal* problem.

>> They need
>> special Gender designations. That SPECIAL gender designation would be
>> different than MALE or FEMALE, they would also be separated from the
>> other GENDERS as the M/F are from each other already. Or at least you
>> say so when you say they need special hate crime laws and marriage laws.
>>
>> They are different and need special treatment like a NEW GENDER WOULD NEED.
>>
>> –
>
> And there’s the special circle of hell for bigots. Hope you’ll like
> it there.

Go and be as gay as you want, I don’t need to hear about it.
You deserve no more RIGHTS than I do.

I don’t have a God or a heaven or Hell.
I deal in FACTS.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:14:57 +0000

On 11/21/2011 6:02 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECAD06A.8060906 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 4:44 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> “Bret Cahill” wrote in message
>>> news:3ba5dd07-6491-484d-9ace-a1c3779db7fc @&*$?%k5g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have
>>>>> been
>>>>> wiped out in 1944 -
>>>>
>>>> 1944 was the most Keynesian, most income leveling, biggest economic
>>>> boom since July 4, 1776.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>
>>>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> 12 million of the 130 million American population were in the military
>>> getting government (socialistic) help.
>>> They got food
>>> They got clothing (uniforms)
>>> They got shelter
>>> They got medical care
>>> They got training.
>>> They got paid a monthly stipend.
>>>
>>> Socialism at work!
>>>
>>> There was virtually no unemployment
>>> Our factories worked at capacity
>>> We made stuff we put on ships and German submarines sank those ships so
>>> we had to make more.
>>> We didn’t even have to sell the stuff our factories made
>>> We borrowed hand over foot to pay for the war….something bush,jr
>>> neglected to do.
>>
>> Are you saying that the government can afford to permanently hire 10% of
>> the National population? That works well in Cuba and Russia and
>> Socialist states.
>>
>> Wasn’t the “WAR” a manipulated and unsustainable economy, Rome and
>> Germany and a few others have tried to create an economy based on NEW
>> conquests of their neighbors but they always fail.
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> Don’t give that “Are you saying bullshit”
>
> My words are clear.
> My words are in English.
>
> What happened in WWII is a model we can learn from.

What I learn from it is that it was a panic to win the war, else we all
become NAZI and dying by attrition was better than being a NAZI. That
economy was no where near what people would want to be forced to live on
a daily basis without the threat of NAZI murderers taking over, which is
why we all work to live better under freedom.

The NAZIs were efficient at eliminating their problems. But I don’t want
to live like one. During WWII Americans were living in a military
state. That is NOT a reasonable plan to eliminate poverty.

I’ll take the poverty and freedom over being in a Military state under
the thumb of government micro managing my economic life.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:52:52 +0000

On 11/21/2011 5:00 PM, Milt wrote:
> On Nov 21, 10:54 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>> –
>
> Poverty was much lower when tax rates were 70% and above than it is
> now.

So you’re saying that we spend more now and poverty is worse, isn’t that
a catch-22 when you admit that things were better then and worse now?

It would seem to indicate that spending less was better.

Spending less must be better than spending more(you just said so)….

Oh wait the Treasury still took in about 18% of GDP so raising taxes had
almost zero effect on Federal funds to taken in to spend back in 1944.

so you need to tax more and/or spend less, start by spending less and
see if that is sufficient and if NOT then we would be forced to look at
something else.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:33:07 +0000

On 11/21/2011 4:46 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “First. Post” wrote in message
> news:rfglc7drc5nib0a1rpog6u7u9kic0l1usb @&*$?%4ax.com…
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:29:55 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/21/2011 12:43 PM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:24:48 -0600, First. Post
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0700, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without,
>>>>>>>> dumbass. So
>>>>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would
>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of
>>>>>>> poverty, do
>>>>>>> you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
>>>>>> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
>>>>>> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact.
>>>>>> Won’t
>>>>>> work moron.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you can’t refute their post.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you cannot truthfully state that simply raising taxes will cure a
>>>>> damned thing.
>>>>
>>>> Nobody claimed it would be a total cure for poverty, moron. That is
>>>> your straw man.
>>>
>>> Did doubling or tripling taxes cut poverty by 50%?
>>
>> Didn’t cut it a bit.
>> The only thing that higher taxes accomplish is it gives the
>> bureaucrats more money to spend.
>>
>
> Paid for WWII something that bush,jr neglected

Taxpayers paid for both wars….. Obama spent more money and didn’t
pay off any war. Then Obama started a new war in Libya. We paid 80% of
NATO war costs.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:27:54 +0000

On 11/21/2011 4:44 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Bret Cahill” wrote in message
> news:3ba5dd07-6491-484d-9ace-a1c3779db7fc @&*$?%k5g2000pre.googlegroups.com…
>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>> wiped out in 1944 -
>>
>> 1944 was the most Keynesian, most income leveling, biggest economic
>> boom since July 4, 1776.
>>
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>
> .
> .
> .
> 12 million of the 130 million American population were in the military
> getting government (socialistic) help.
> They got food
> They got clothing (uniforms)
> They got shelter
> They got medical care
> They got training.
> They got paid a monthly stipend.
>
> Socialism at work!
>
> There was virtually no unemployment
> Our factories worked at capacity
> We made stuff we put on ships and German submarines sank those ships so
> we had to make more.
> We didn’t even have to sell the stuff our factories made
> We borrowed hand over foot to pay for the war….something bush,jr
> neglected to do.

Are you saying that the government can afford to permanently hire 10% of
the National population? That works well in Cuba and Russia and
Socialist states.

Wasn’t the “WAR” a manipulated and unsustainable economy, Rome and
Germany and a few others have tried to create an economy based on NEW
conquests of their neighbors but they always fail.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:15:40 +0000

On 11/21/2011 4:26 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
> message news:4ECA7583.6000309 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>
>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>> you?
>>
>>
>>
>> –
>>
>
> It didn’t fail.
> Unemployment was non-existent.
> Unlike the borrow and spend Republicans
> FDR and the Democrats were paying for the war.

Bush had an unemployment rate of only 7% and Obama has a 9% unemployment
rate. How can that be, Obama has spent more in 3 years than Bush ever
did? Using your analogy we should have a lower unemployment rate NOW,
after all the spending.

> Your post is a deceptive LIE

Your truth is lacking any reality.

> We wouldn’t be in this situation if bush,jr paid for his war’s and
> properly funded his big pharma friendly prescription plan.
>

Spending is good according to you. Where the money comes from should be
of no consequence because in the end the money is from the taxpayers
regardless of the path it took to be spent . The money was spent by
Bush and then even more money spent by Obama and we are still at 9%
unemployment… why?

Taxing more and spending more will NOT help. Just look at Solyndra and
spending that $500 million. It’s from the tax payers and it payed for
short term jobs to help Democrats re-election campaign. It has done
nothing to end the economic crash.

If you are pissing in the wind you won’t notice your peeing all over
yourself during the rain.

It’s raining NOW, and you’re pissing in the wind.

> The situation was created by Republicans and now they obstruct solving
> their problems.

Wrong and wrong.

Children are made into sheep and easy targets for the gay sexual predators by the Schools that teach them that it’s HATE and it’s illegal to dislike and a HATE CRIME to defend themselves from the gay predators…

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:09:51 +0000

On 11/21/2011 10:46 AM, @&*$?%gmail.com">erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 19, 5:20 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> Children are made into sheep and easy targets for the gay sexual
>> predators by the Schools that teach them that it’s HATE and it’s illegal
>> to dislike and a HATE CRIME to defend themselves from the gay predators…
>>
>> This is the underlying problem with government schools, they teach the
>> Democrat-Socialist agenda hidden as an under the desk education that is
>> forced on all students.
>>
>> On 11/19/2011 8:20 AM, (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)
>>
>> http://www.TravelForPay.org wrote:
>>
>>> [[[[ RESOURCE POST: *FACTS* Don't Change.
>>> And Constantly *Repeating* Them is DOOMING
>>> the Bigots' IRRATIONAL Hate-Agendas! ]]]]
>>
>>> Egalitarians are INTELLIGENT enough to know that once FACTS
>>> that are *devastating* to all bigots and their hate-agendas –
>>> especially the ones that seek to *victimize* TENS of MILLIONS of
>>> people by blocking them from (1) having across-the-board EQUAL
>>> rights for all LGBT people, including Marriage Equality… for abso-
>>> lutely NO good reason, and
>>
>> We see one reason that jumped out at us this month, g&*$?%s that are after
>> young boys in the public showers…..
>>
>> If G&*$?%s are different and need Gay Hate crime laws and need gay
>> Marriage, then they also need *GENDER SPECIFIC FACILITIES* . and need to
>> be kept out of locker rooms for heterosexuals. The G&*$?%s need a (G) for
>> their sex on their drivers license. Anyone known to have gay sex should
>> be so designated permanently. Then when caught in a boys facilities
>> they can be chastised just as boys slipping into the girls bath room
>> are, and marked as sexual predators or stalkers. As Men hanging out in
>> the girls bathrooms are.
>>
>> Then there’s military bunks boys camps….. and other NOT so private
>> areas where g&*$?%s can stalk and cruise for vulnerable situations with
>> boys or men. G&*$?%s RIGHTS have been placed above the RIGHTS of hetero
>> sexual men…. HATE LAWS have replaced social taboos that once kept
>> g&*$?%s from attacking/molesting young men are NOW making hetero sexual men
>> targets for older gay sexual predators. A fist was once used to
>> warn-off g&*$?%s and it is NOW a HATE CRIME. Children are made into sheep
>> and easy targets for the gay sexual predators by the Schools that teach
>> them that it is illegal to dislike or defend themselves from the gay
>> predators…
>>
>> It is the *government that has created the NEW PROBLEMS* through social
>> engineering.
>>
>>> (2) IRRATIONALLY seeking to hurl the
>>> USAback into the pre-1973 Dark Ages of FORCING girls and wom-
>>> en to gestate WORTHLESS-when-UNwanted pregnancies to term
>>> against their will (a very real and unconscionable 9-month-long
>>> form of RAPE)…have been marshalled and presented WELL –
>>> the BEST way to put those resources to use is to RE-PRESENT
>>> them *every* time that it is appropriate to do so.
>>
>> The dark ages when they killed babies? Yes that is true, we are in the
>> darkest of the baby killing ages where millions are killed despite the
>> FACT that we have drugs and condoms and sterilization and more that can
>> prevent the fertilization and creation of a person.
>>
>> If you can call a corporation a person, isn’t it obvious that a human
>> baby in or out of a uterus is a person. First of all there is no
>> specific mention that a person can NOT reside in a uterus. Secondly the
>> GPS coordinates of a person inside the united States territory can be in
>> a uterus. There is no distinction for person-hood. A person is a live
>> human inside of the united states.
>>
>> A “citizen” is a person born inside the united states.
>>
>> NOTE the distinction that a citizen is “born” inside the united States
>> or naturalized after their birth, but they are still a person if they
>> are in the united states and are NOT a citizen.
>>
>> It isn’t a question of what “you” want, it’s a question of another
>> persons RIGHTS….. You get tired of your kids you can *NOT* just kill
>> them under our constitution because they are persons with RIGHTS. As
>> is a person in the uterus.
>>
>> The FACT you have committed a million murders a year is no reason to
>> keep murdering a million children a year.
>>
>> Vegans that can’t eat meat because they love all the little animals are
>> a measure of your hypocrisy as they are mostly Democrat-Socialists that
>> are willing to kill a human life but then make such a stink over their
>> NOT killing animals to eat.
>>
>> The ignorance of the LEFT-WING LOONS is colossal.
>
> Most child sexual abuse occurs from heterosexual adults.

Most hand gun murders are black on black….. so why do we need hate
crime laws? You Liberals aren’t very consistent with your support of
laws. Sort of hypocritical aren’t you?

Is that what you are saying when you say, “most sex crimes are by
heterosexuals”

98% of people are heterosexual.
17% are black
2% are gay

ALL ARE CITIZENS and all need to be equal under the law.

The problem with your scenario is that we need equal protection under
the law and g&*$?%s are less than 2% of the population but still need to
have laws that include them as a special hate law does. They need
special Gender designations. That SPECIAL gender designation would be
different than MALE or FEMALE, they would also be separated from the
other GENDERS as the M/F are from each other already. Or at least you
say so when you say they need special hate crime laws and marriage laws.

They are different and need special treatment like a NEW GENDER WOULD NEED.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:28:29 +0000

On 11/21/2011 1:55 PM, liberal wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:29 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 12:43 PM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:24:48 -0600, First. Post
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0700, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>>>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>>>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>
>>>>>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>>>>>> you?
>>
>>>>> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
>>>>> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
>>>>> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact. Won’t
>>>>> work moron.
>>
>>>> So you can’t refute their post.
>>
>>>> And you cannot truthfully state that simply raising taxes will cure a
>>>> damned thing.
>>
>>> Nobody claimed it would be a total cure for poverty, moron. That is
>>> your straw man.
>>
>> Did doubling or tripling taxes cut poverty by 50%?
>>
>> –
>
> In the early 1940s, poverty disappeared in America. Yes, that’s when
> the federal income tax was raised to 91%.
>
> What do you fail to grasp?

["The Great Depression and World War II
The Great Depression and World War II cast long shadows over American
life in the 1940s. During the 1930s President Franklin D. Roosevelt's
New Deal created a sense of economic optimism and eased the suffering of
many, but it did not eradicate poverty or solve the economic crisis. In
1941 as many as 40 percent of all American families lived below poverty
level. Nearly eight million workers earned less than the legal minimum
wage. Another eight million Americans were unemployed, and the median
income was only $2,000 per year. While the economic picture improved
during the 1940s, the sense of crisis created by the Depression
permanently altered lifestyles and attitudes. The so-called depression
mentality of fear and economic caution marked an entire generation,"]

Imagine that, things improved after that WORLD WAR? Maybe you can tell
me how things could have been getting any worse? Do you remember the
“G/I BILL“… part of the pay for military service that they collected
when and if they lived to come home.

You live in La-La Land. I have an 87 year old mother that can tell
you about it, she was there. My father went home to become a contractor
and builder. May I remind you that we just had a boom time after 9/11,
the economy was roaring and taxes were lower than 94%.

The number of poor on food stamps decreased.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 19:10:36 +0000

On 11/21/2011 12:46 PM, wy wrote:
> On Nov 21, 12:24 pm, First. Post
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0700, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, d…@dudu.org wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>
>>>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>>>> you?
>>
>>> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
>>> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
>>> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact. Won’t
>>> work moron.
>>
>> So you can’t refute their post.
>>
>> And you cannot truthfully state that simply raising taxes will cure a
>> damned thing.
>>
>> Try to get you head out of your own simplistic a&*$?%s long enough to
>> realize that a single tax break alone does not fully re energize any
>> economy.
>> All the tax cuts in the world will accomplish nothing as long as you
>> have an administration that has openly declared its’ hostility towards
>> businesses and the job creators.
>> The only thing it has accomplished is to drive even more companies
>> (even including those that were given bailout money) to China and
>> elsewhere.
>
> The high taxes in 1944 helped win the war.

AAAaaaaaaahhhhheeeeemmmmm…. it was a war and people bought Bonds too
and they rationed and collected rubber and brass and Steel to recycle as
bombs. Copper pots and pans became bullets.

If you limit people to one meat dinner per week and one pair of shoes
per year while convincing people to BUY U.S. Bonds, with a top tax rate
of 94% and the best you can do is say that you could dump the Nation
into the Fascism of WWII life 100% of the time just to end poverty and
you still have zero proof that it would work because WWII still had poor.

> Or had you forgotten
> that? And hey, imagine that. If it could help win a whole big world
> war, imagine how it could solve poverty. But it seems there’s no
> money to be made for anyone in solving poverty, so I guess you’re just
> stuck with it.

Is it time for a stupid and futile gesture on someones part?

You actually believe that money causes poverty?

Have you NOT been giving money to people for 70 years? Aren’t there just
as many poor people today?

The Lobbyist WHO Controls America….

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:41:12 +0000

On 11/21/2011 1:19 PM, Lee Curtis wrote:
> Z wrote:
>
>> On Nov 21, 8:29 am, “6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09″
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:28:56 -0500, C…@PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “C…@PrayForMe.com”
>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>
>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>>> As a voter, I’ll vote anyone out of office who raises my taxes or
>>>> my mean rich bosses.
>>>
>>>> Obama hired at least 120 thousand ‘new’ federal workers during a
>>>> recession! What new ways are they spending out money?
>>>
>>> Well, they’re paying their rent, buying groceries, clothes, going to
>>> restaurants and movies, maybe putting a down on a car…
>>>
>>> You really don’t understand how an economy works at all, do you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Lower taxes and less government spending will make it work better.
>> Higher taxes and government wasteful spending will make it worse.
>
>
> We should elect Republican like Reagan who reduced
> government spending. Oh, wait, he didn’t. Or maybe elect
> a president like Bush who reduced government spending.
> Oh, wait, he didn’t either. Or maybe Romney or Perry.
> Oh, wait……….
>
>
>
>
WE need a new type of politician that spends less.

The TEA PARTY is on that track.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:29:55 +0000

On 11/21/2011 12:43 PM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:24:48 -0600, First. Post
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:49:49 -0700, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>>>
>>>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>>>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>>>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>>>
>>>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>>>
>>>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>>>
>>>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
>>> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
>>> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact. Won’t
>>> work moron.
>>
>> So you can’t refute their post.
>>
>> And you cannot truthfully state that simply raising taxes will cure a
>> damned thing.
>
> Nobody claimed it would be a total cure for poverty, moron. That is
> your straw man.

Did doubling or tripling taxes cut poverty by 50%?

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:00:03 +0000

On 11/21/2011 11:40 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:54:35 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>
> http://people.stern.nyu.edu/nroubini/SUPPLY.HTM

The heart of this garbage you linked is ignoring that… it isn’t
claimed that the ratio of GDP to Treasury coffers income was going to
change.

It is a given that 18% of the GDP is the average that the treasury will
CONSUME. But 18% of a 16trillion dollar GDP is MORE than 18% of a
13trillion dollar GDP.

You really aren’t “getting it” are you?

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:37:35 +0000

On 11/21/2011 11:49 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 11:00:03 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>>>
>>> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
>>> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.
>>
>>
>> If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
>> wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Income Tax Act of 1944
>> 1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual
>>
>> to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.
>>
>>
>> The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.
>>
>>
>> Can you tell us why it failed?
>>
>> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg
>>
>> I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
>> you?
>
> If cutting taxes improved the economy we would be in a boom cycle
> right now, dumbass, not a bust. You people replace knowledge with
> stupidity and expect everybody to accept your stupidity as fact. Won’t
> work moron.

So we are in a bust due to spending NOT due to low taxes. Taxes will
NOT increase the income to fill the treasury…. but spending more
than 18% of GDP will empty the Treasury.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1324
*Bottom of the page in charts*

The income to the treasury when the taxes were 94% was no boon to the
TREASURY and it does crush the economy. The way to get more taxes into
the Treasury is to keep income taxes low enough to encourage economic
growth, without growth you hit the glass ceiling of 18% Treasury
receipts and stop. Stopping growth then stops more income into the
treasury. So raising taxes will leave the treasury and economy smaller
than the original lower taxes.

Raising Taxes is not a linear function.

But Democrat-Socialists are too stupid to understand it.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/GIF/hist_receipt_source_GDP.gif

No matter what the taxes are raised to, you will only get an average of
18% of the GDP, at that point when you raise taxes more, you will
decrease the size/growth of the economy.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 17:33:16 +0000

So we are in a bust due to spending NOT due to low taxes. Taxes will
NOT increase the income to fill the treasury…. but spending more
than 18% of GDP will empty the Treasury.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1324
*Bottom of the page in charts*

Raising Taxes is not a linear function.

But Democrat-Socialists are too stupid to understand it.

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 16:00:03 +0000

On 11/21/2011 9:48 AM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:18:26 -0500, “CB@PrayForMe.com”
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> WHAT PAERT OF NO NEW TAXES CAN’T YOU UNDERSTAND?
>>
>>
>> GUBMENT MUST LEARN TO DO WTHOUT!
>
> It’s not the “gubment” that going to have to do without, dumbass. So
> who’s benefits get cut? Oh I know, everybody’s but yours.

If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.

Income Tax Act of 1944
1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual

to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.

The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.

Can you tell us why it failed?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/MarginalIncomeTax.svg

I don’t see any correlation between high taxes and a lack of poverty, do
you?

If High taxes would solve all our problem then poverty would have been wiped out in 1944 when income taxes were at 98%.

admin — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 15:54:35 +0000

If High taxes would solve all our problems then poverty would have been
wiped out in 1944 – 1986 when income taxes were as high as 94%.

Income Tax Act of 1944
1944 24 23% 94% $200,000 $2.54M Individual

to 1981 where it was 70% and dropped in 1986 to 38%.

The HIGH TAX wasn’t a cure for poverty.

Can you tell us why it failed?

George Soros Is An Infamous $Billionaire Socialist From Kenya Who Ran A Nazi Death Camp When He Was 11 With Bill Ayers.

admin — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:10:01 +0000

On 11/17/2011 10:47 PM, Georgious wrote:
> 6313 Dead, 1456 since 1/20/09 wrote
>>
>> On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:42:52 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/17/2011 7:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
>>>> On 11/17/2011 11:43 AM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ACORN does not exist, kooker.
>>>
>>> The son of ACORN
>>>
>>> ACORN II
>>>
>>> The Ghost of ACORN
>>>
>>> ACORN REVISITED
>>>
>>>
>>> ACORN HAS A NEW NAME… BUT THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME.
>>
>> And heaven forbid that lots of Americans should be able to vote.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Unemployed a&*$?%s like white trash “Beam Me Up” do not contribute to society.

And where is the law that says anyone must “contribute to Society”

Whether I do or do NOT is only of interest to BUSY BODY little old
ladies……

But I’ll place my attributes against what you have done in you life.
I’m confident I have done more than some and less than others. Which
is really NOT your concern.

ACORN, George Soros and the core of the Democratic Party is materially supports OWS anarchy

admin — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:42:52 +0000

On 11/17/2011 7:37 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 11/17/2011 11:43 AM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>
> ACORN does not exist, kooker.

The son of ACORN

ACORN II

The Ghost of ACORN

ACORN REVISITED

ACORN HAS A NEW NAME… BUT THE SONG REMAINS THE SAME.

Bank of AmeriKa Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On Taxpayers – Super Committee Looks Away < < < Seize Bank of AmeriKa Now!

admin — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:28:17 +0000

On 11/13/2011 12:04 AM, Old Pif wrote:
> On Nov 12, 8:23 pm, Sexual Harassment Panda wrote:
>
>>
>>> If it is illegal it can be challenged in court.
>>
>> I think the Senate may hold a hearing on this transfer. At least I read about
>> that a few days ago.
>>
>
> Post a link. I will write my two senators right away.

Vote them out, ALL NEW people, tea Party that has promised to NOT follow
the OLD ones that created this mess.

Socialism is collapsing

admin — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 20:14:33 +0000

On 11/10/2011 3:07 PM, liberal wrote:
> On Nov 5, 2:50 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 9:59 am, “TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher”
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>> On Nov 4, 9:28 pm, Harold Burton wrote:
>>
>>>> In article
>>>> ,
>>>> “TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher”
>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 10:41 pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 19:25:19 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
>>
>>>>>> Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Old Baye wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/2/2011 7:17 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 1, 7:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> the old economy(free market economics, free trade, globalism)is
>>>>>>>>>> collapsing.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is NOT.
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, you are broke. That’s why Europe is turning to China for help. Our
>>>>>>> survival depends on a communist nation, not terribly evil like the Evil
>>>>>>> Empire though.
>>
>>>>>>> And you are proud to say, “NO NEW TAXES!” You must admit the Chinese are
>>>>>>> smarter.
>>
>>>>>> Capitalism is disappearing, and the socialism that is replacing it is
>>>>>> collapsing.
>>
>>>>>> Capitalism depends upon government to protect property rights, but with
>>>>>> the invention of fiat money based on debt to privately owned central
>>>>>> banks, government itself has created the system for the central banks to
>>>>>> steal trillions of dollars from the people.
>>
>>>>> Capitalism and Communism are both complementary and competitive, but
>>>>> capitalism can beat starvation communism and consumer communism . . .
>>
>>>> Hahahahahaha. Care to explain “consumer communism”? Thought not.
>>
>>>> snicker
>>
>>> China is the perfect example. Wasn’t that obvious. Usually communism
>>> discourages consumption but China is the black sheep in that regard.
>>> And it works better than capitalism. Of course, it works better for
>>> the system, NOT the workers.
>>
>> correct. there is very little difference between free market
>> capitalism(fascism), and communism(marxism), in either system, almost
>> all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a few.
>>
>> so far not one conservative/libertarian/fascist/commie sympathizer
>> has been able to refute the above.
>
> Well, then you need me to explain the difference.
>
> You, apparently, think China is a communist society. It isn’t. It is a
> *SOCIALIST* society. Read Marx. Marx said there has to be a
> “whithering away” of the **STATE** in order to “progress” to the
> “true” ***COMMUNIST*** society. You see, in fact, a communist economy
> is very much like a libertarian economy. No government, no
> rules….Why? Because both philosophies assume a population of totally
> moral and totally cooperative citizens. Thus no government and no
> rules needed.
>
> From Philosophy 103 (overview of economic theories) :
>
> Feudalism > capitalism > socialism > whithering away of the state >
> communism….

Feudalism > capitalism > socialism > whithering away of the state >
communism > Somalia….

Somalia has become the Socialist UTOPIA.

The Globalist Attack on National Sovereignty in Libya < < < GO NWO!!!

admin — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 15:34:28 +0000

On 11/5/2011 3:52 PM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> The Globalist Attack on National Sovereignty in Libya
>
> Ethan Jacobs, J.D.
> Activist Post
>
> Video and photographic evidence obtained by Global Post demonstrates
> that Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was literally sodomized before being
> murdered by NATO/U.S.-backed Al-Qaeda rebel forces.
>
> The footage reveals the mindset of the NATO backed forces, violent thugs
> that U.S. taxpayers are funding as their homes are foreclosed.
>
> It is a mindset that clearly knows no bounds and has been unleashed on
> sovereign nations worldwide …
>
> 1/libya-globalist-attack-on-national.html

Libya is another “New World Order” Nation created by NATO, the mercenary
army of the RICH Bankers.

NATO is out of control,

Then the NEW WORLD ORDER told the Greek Prime Minister to get in line
and accept the Economic theft of his NATION or he would be driven from
office. The New World Order, is moving faster and faster and people are
getting poorer and poorer…… One world Government is the problem.

Capitalism is finally collapsing but there’s hope

admin — Thu, 03 Nov 2011 03:28:11 +0000

On 11/2/2011 10:25 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> On Nov 2, 12:45 pm, Old Baye wrote:
>> On 11/2/2011 7:17 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 7:44 pm, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>>> the old economy(free market economics, free trade, globalism)is
>>>> collapsing.
>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>
>> No, it is NOT.
>
> Yes, you are broke. That’s why Europe is turning to China for help.
> Our survival depends on a communist nation, not terribly evil like the
> Evil Empire though.
>
> And you are proud to say, “NO NEW TAXES!” You must admit the Chinese
> are smarter.

Yes they would have sent tanks to clear out Occupy Wall St.-NYC-
Zuccotti Square…

I can see the smart in that.

A founder of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ talks about movement’s origin & what co mes next

admin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:25:58 +0000

On 10/24/2011 10:09 PM, Captain Compassion wrote:
> “The universe is eight billion years old, the last two billion of
> which have produced intelligent life.

Does this person have inside Knowledge of the universe and that no
intelligence, was born before ours anywhere in the universe?

The big question is, why has there been NO NEW intelligent life that has
different DNA from the humans already on earth.

Shouldn’t NEW forms of life be created everyday on earth, we have all
the elements on earth so new life with different DNA should be all
around us? Yet we don’t see it.

The Original plan that could have stopped this insanity

admin — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 01:57:52 +0000

*HOW TO ALLOW AMERICA TO SURVIVE*
And give America back to Americans

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?

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

Create Bi-color money, Red money for inside the USA and Original Green
money outside the USA….. NOTHING BUT A COLOR/INK difference, and
suddenly sending red money home to Mexico would be useless as the RED
money would be useless in Mexico since the Banks and etc wouldn’t accept
it abroad. All electronic money leaving the USA would be debited the
Sales tax when the money is sent/spent.

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a NATIONAL
“NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL HELP THE
DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money leaving the
country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the RED money
for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that point.

Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment…
Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) *BUT NOT A VAT or VALUE ADDED 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 to
the amendment that *if congress raises any 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 trespassing 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. There needs to be one type
of dollar for use inside America and one type(color) of dollars for use
outside the USA. That will make it harder for smugglers to get money out
of the country and if they do spend it here then they will pay the sales
tax and that money is used to enforce the laws to catch smugglers. 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 and
giving a bonus to illegal activity. Sales tax will also encourage saving
money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can
borrow 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 seven year sunset clause, and it requires
that each law/treaty be voted by a separate roll call vote every seven
years to continue to be maintained in our laws.

There should also be some constitutional amendments to stifle congress’
borrowing and spending making it more difficult for that process. And a
constitutional amendment to limit the Interstate Commerce Clause. The
politicians use that clause to justify all sorts of socialist c&*$?%p. The
founding fathers never meant for it to be so broadly applied. Limit it
with an amendment, so government can’t justify every crazy idea by
saying its legal under the interstate commerce clause.

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.

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 governments use of tax code to manipulate
people.

Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they meet the
income of the government. The best 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 to include a law in our
TAX amendment to the constitution that can’t be easily circumvented, to
force them to cut spending 3% for every 1% Congress raise taxes. So any
federal sales tax increase would result in automatic 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 also need fewer crimes for people to be
committing, we need fewer police and prisons to support…. the above
drug and tax plan, will reduce police and prison needs by at least that
10% that this plan suggested cutting each year.

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.

Obama will be giving a speech

admin — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 14:41:36 +0000

I have written and added to and rewritten this several times since the
late Bush and early Obama Regimes created and made worse our economic
problems.

I heard Obama will be giving a speech that would call for less
“regulation” and tax incentives and stability…

Interestingly this is Obama paying lip service to the ideas that he has
been against and been doing the opposite of, over the past three years.

+————————————————————–+
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.

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

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 to
the amendment that if congress raises tax by 1% they are forced to cut
every single expenditure of the government by 3%.

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

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.

Conservatives Hate America

admin — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 01:51:47 +0000

On 8/10/2011 8:42 PM, Waldo wrote:
> I’ve noticed the Neo-Cons use America for their plans of “Empire”
> What does the T-Party have to say about Wars for OIL>?

The TEA PARTY wasn’t around when the wars started, except Obama’s NEW
Libya war. (Is that a war for OIL?)

The TEA PARTY is for a strong constitutional defence/military. Other
than that they have no opinion on any Obama war. We don’t need a war
for oil, we have a lot of oil right here in America, going to war for
what we already have would be stupid wouldn’t it? All Obama needs to do
is let America drill for their own oil so the premise and the scenario
is NOT legitimate.

Strong Defence
Constitutional Government
Economic sanity

These are the only three issues of the true TEA PARTY.

If Obama followed the constitution rather than HIRE a mercenary ARMY
called NATO to bypass the constitutional responsibilities of the
Commander in Chief, he would be supported.

LOOKS LIKE THIS PLAN WAS CORRECT

admin — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:29:19 +0000

*LOOKS LIKE THIS PLAN WAS CORRECT *
And gives America back to Americans

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

Create Bi-color money, Red money for inside the USA and Original Green
money outside the USA….. NOTHING BUT A COLOR/INK difference, and
suddenly sending red money home to Mexico would be useless as the RED
money would be useless in Mexico since the Banks and etc wouldn’t accept
it abroad. All electronic money leaving the USA would be debited the
Sales tax when the money is sent/spent.

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a NATIONAL
“NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL HELP THE
DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money leaving the
country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the RED money
for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that point.

Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment…
Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) *BUT NOT A VAT or VALUE ADDED 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 to
the amendment that if congress raises tax by 1% they are forced to cut
every single expenditure of the government by 3%.

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

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.

NO NEW GREEN HOUSE GAS IS BEING ADDED, IT IS EXCHANGED.

admin — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 21:05:44 +0000

On 8/2/2011 2:10 PM, Shiny Side Down wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:19:09 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> On 8/2/2011 12:55 AM, Richard Steel wrote:
>>
>>> When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed
>>> scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate
>>> models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our
>>> elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do
>>> so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global
>>> warming alarmism truly are.
>>
>>
>>
>> They should have asked why all that CO2 and other gas added to the
>> atmosphere then heated has neither expanded the atmosphere
>
> How much do you think it should have expanded the atmosphere?
> How would you go about measuring it?
>
>> nor has it
>> cause the atmospheric pressure to rise…..
>
> How much would you expect the pressure to rise?
> How would you go about measuring it?
>
>
>> If they had done the
>> simple BASIC physics they would know that every action like heating the
>> atmosphere and/or adding mass to it, would cause a reaction.
>
> So write a paper and win a Nobel.
>
>> What is
>> the reaction that the ALARMISTS have seen, didn’t they use simple
>> satellite photos to see it?
>
> What makes you think it would be visible in the satellite data?
>
>
>> They have never told us WHY physics has
>> ceased to exist in the world of Global Warming.
>
> Bullshit lie.
>
>
>>
>>
>> If the infusion of new mass and heating the Atmosphere has creating no
>> change,
>
> Prove it.
>
>> what is happening….?
> You brain is rotting into a pile of something disgusting?
>
>>
>>
>> I suggested that rather than increasing atmospheric volume or
>> atmospheric pressure, the simplest result is that a gas or something had
>> to leave to make room rather than expansion of the atmosphere, or the
>> atmospheric pressure rise, and that would be water vapor.
>
> Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

Which supports MY hypothesis that replacing Water Vapor with CO2 in the
atmosphere will create no new or added green house effect.

Which is also supported by the fact that we are NOT warming.

*FROM THE URL YOU SUPPLIED*
["Everyone agrees that if you add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, then
warming will result,” Dessler said. “So the real question is, how much
warming?"]

NO NEW GREEN HOUSE GAS IS BEING ADDED, IT IS EXCHANGED.

The problem is they have yet to examine the FACT that adding CO2 will
increase the volume or atmospheric pressure, and what happens when
neither are reacting to the increase in CO2 put into the atmosphere?

Thanks for the link it confirms my hypothesis with one more supporting
page that says replacing WATER VAPOR with CO2 will result in little
change in GREEN HOUSE effect. IT also confirms that they have yet to
rule out that water vapor is leaving the atmosphere as part of the
atmosphere seeking its equilibrium.

NEW STUDY
["The study also rebuts a second major prediction of the Co2 theory of
warming: that Co2 warming is amplified by increased water vapor. Co2
alone cannot fit the climate models, and they all have a plug factor put
in for climate sensitivity. The most important physical mechanism for
the plug factor is an increase in humidity (water vapor) at the
greenhouse layer. Water vapor absorbs more infrared than Co2. The study
found that humidity actually was decreasing in the greenhouse layer,
negating the effect of Co2."]
http://wallstreetpit.com/32342-co2-negated-as-cause-of-global-warming

DAMN that’s another web page that confirms that my hypothesis may be a
theory and here is the path to support my theory.

CNN – Housing starts rose in July

admin — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 19:29:34 +0000

On 8/2/2011 2:20 PM, Repubs Lost Both Wars wrote:
> Existing homes selling fast – record fast
>
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — “Sales of existing homes rose in July for
> the fourth consecutive month”

And at this hyper pace…. how many years will it take to clear the
books of all the foreclosed assets? CNN are all Liberal liars so you
might as well fess up and admit that you’re spreading a ton of
propaganda and NOT a pound of gold.

There are 10 years of houses in reserve to be sold.

But hey, why not make a ton of s&*$?%t sound like a pound of gold.

SWINDLED AGAIN by a Congress too GUTLESS to Live Within Its Means!! It’s 2008 All Over Again!!

admin — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:32:44 +0000

On 8/2/2011 10:12 AM, (¯`·.¸ Craig Chilton ¸.·´¯)
http://www.TravelForPay.org wrote:
>
> The American People have been **SWINDLED** AGAIN
> by a Congress too GUTLESS to Live Within Its Means!
> It’s 2008 All Over Again!!
>
>
> Check to see how YOUR Congressperson and Senators voted.
>
> And tell them it’s PAYBACK TIME on their next Election Day! –
>
> — If they voted AGAINST the Swindle — RE-ELECT them!
> — If they voted FOR the Swindle — Chuck them OUT of office!
>
> The LESSON to the remaining ones might FINALLY be learned:
>
> — NEXT time a “Debt Ceiling Deadline” comes along — vote it
> DOWN or you *WILL* become a *job-hunter!*
>

*OBAMA AND THE OTHERS KNEW THAT THEY WOULD GET A NEW DEBT CEILING*

Their only problem was deciding how to force feed it to *YOU*

So they had already done what’s below—->

President Donates $100 Billion to the United Nations

Posted By Paul L. Williams On October 6, 2010 @ 3:21 pm In Guest Columns
| Comments Disabled

The U. S. State Department yesterday announced that the Obama
Administration has agreed to contribute $4 billion to the United Nations
Global Fund to fight AIDs, Tuberculosis, and Malaria from 2011 to 2013.

The $4 billion represents a 38% increase over the previous U.S.
commitment to the fund.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that a total of $11.7
billion has been raised from 40 countries, the European Commission,
faith-based organizations, private foundations, and various corporations.

This means that over one-third of the money will come from the pockets
of US taxpayers.

Oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and the United Arab
Emirates contribute next to nothing, and China, which holds most of the
US $14 trillion debt, agreed to provide a measly $14 million.

In addition to the annual gift of $1.33 billion to the Global Fund,
President Obama has agreed to provide billions more for UN projects.

These allocations are set forth in a 28 page document as follows:

Funnel $63 billion to the Global Health Initiative during the next
six years
Make $1 billion annually to education programs
Give $475 million to the Global Agricultural and Food Security Program’
Provide $800 million from the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation to Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East and North
Africa. An additional $3.2 billion will be provided by private equity
capital sources to these Muslim nations
Shell out millions more available through USAID for developing tech
hubs in Uganda, Kenya, Cameroon, South Africa, and Senegal.
Dole out $80 million through the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation for small to medium enterprises in the Middle East and North
Africa.
Cough up $2.5 billion annually to 90 countries to “strengthen
governance and democratic institutions.”
Make available $30 billion through the Obama’s Climate Change
Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, $100 billion
a year will be provided through taxpayer and private resources to deal
with the alleged threat of global climate change [1].

The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget [2] and
more than 27% for U.N. the peacekeeping budget. Mr. Obama has requested
$516.3 million for the U.N. regular budget and more than $2.182 billion
for the peacekeeping budget for 2011.

The United States is also assessed for numerous other United Nations
organizations as well. More than $6.347 billion went to U.N.
organizations in FY 2009.

The United States also provides money to the U.N. through the State
Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, Department
of Health and Human Services, and other agencies.

Andrea Lafferty of The Traditional Values Coalition writes: “The U.S.
taxpayer is forced to pay billions to an inefficient organization run by
world leaders who hate America and the free market system. This doesn’t
make any sense – nor does our paying 22% of the cost to keep this
bureaucracy alive when we have only one vote in the General Assembly.”

Several candidates have called for the U.S. to sever its relationship
with the United Nations. The list includes Dennis Ross, a Republican
candidate for Congress from the 12th Congressional District of Florida.

In a statement to The New American, Mr. Ross said:

An organization that allows nations like Iran and Libya to chair
committees dedicated to human and women’s rights makes a mockery of
both. The UN, like any bureaucracy, must constantly be evaluated and put
to the test, and if found lacking, be dismantled. I believe the US
government is perfectly capable of conducting bilateral and multilateral
relations with other nations on our own. Despots, human rights
violators, and tyrants should be confronted, not congratulated.

Such concerns over the U.S. involvement with the UN are not new.

Senator Barry Goldwater was quoted in 1971 by the Congressional Record
as saying:

The time has come to recognize the U.N. for the anti-American,
anti-freedom organization that it has become. The time has come for us
to cut off all financial help, withdraw as a member, and ask the U.N. to
find a headquarters location outside the United States that is more in
keeping with the philosophy of the majority of voting members, someplace
like Moscow or Peking.

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article:
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/president-donates-100-billion-to-the-united-nations/

URLs in this post:

[1] global climate change:
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/read/3802/climategate-scandal-may-derail-global-governance-plans

[2] The United States is assessed at 22% of the U.N. regular budget:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/08/us-funding-of-the-united-nations-reaches-all-time-high

All money spent by government, comes from taxes. SO every dollar that Obama spends, has 40 cents of NEW taxes.

admin — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 03:32:00 +0000

On 7/31/2011 2:20 AM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> “DogDiesel” wrote in message
> news:j12qrn$44e$1 @&*$?%dogdiesel.eternal-september.org…
>>
>> “Juris Diction” wrote in message
>> news:iwas-7A0156.16535630072011 @&*$?%news.shawcable.net…
>>> In article <4e347ca4$0$7916$9a6e19ea @&*$?%news.newshosting.com>,
>>> “Ray Keller” wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only “good news” is that the nation regrettably needs to hit
>>>> rock bottom
>>>> at this time, as a complete and final wake-up call for revolution!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Any true American wouldn’t want the US to fail, so you are probably
>>> working for the al Queda.
>>>
>> All true American patriots want the us government to last forever .
>> And that requires no debt or deficits and small er govrenment and low
>> taxes. And balanced budgets and no borrowing.
>>
>> And that was what this country was created for.
>>
>>
>> To stop government from stealing .from the people
>
> Interesting. When you consider that in the first year of the government
> debt record way back when GW took office, the US national debt was a bit
> over $75 milllion dollars.
>
> Assuming a simple interest loan at an average interest rate of 3%, we
> have paid over the years over $5BILLION dollars just in interest, and we
> STILL owe the $75 million dollars borrowed way back then.
>
> Now when you figure we typically borrowed that interest then it’s really
> a compound interest load, when you calculate it that way with the same
> interest rate and a monthly compounding it works out to be over $5.7
> BILLION dollars paid in interest.
>
> In short we have paid some 6666%- 7600% of the principle in interest
> payments.
>
> Today about $1 of every $5 collected by the federal government goes JUST
> to pay the interest on the National Debt.
>
> Meanwhile about $4 of ever $10 the federal government spends is borrowed.

Where will they get that money that isn’t taxed but is spent?

All money spent by government, comes from taxes. SO every dollar that
Obama spends, has 40 cents of NEW taxes.

The only question is WHEN will this new tax paid?

A TEA PARTY BAIL OUT

admin — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 02:19:00 +0000

*A TEA PARTY BAIL OUT*
give America back to Americans

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?
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

Create Bi-color money, Red money for inside the USA and Original Green
money outside the USA….. NOTHING BUT A COLOR/INK difference, and
suddenly sending red money home to Mexico would be useless as the RED
money would be useless in Mexico since the Banks and etc wouldn’t accept
it abroad. All electronic money leaving the USA would be debited the
Sales tax when the money is sent/spent.

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a NATIONAL
“NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL HELP THE
DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money leaving the
country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the RED money
for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that point.

Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment…
Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) *BUT NOT A VAT or VALUE ADDED 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 to
the amendment that if congress raises 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 trespassing 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. There needs to be one type
of dollar for use inside America and one type(color) of dollars for use
outside the USA. That will make it harder for smugglers to get money out
of the country and if they do spend it here then they will pay the sales
tax and that money is used to enforce the laws to catch smugglers. 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 and
giving a bonus to illegal activity. Sales tax will also encourage saving
money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can
borrow 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 seven year sunset clause, and it requires
that each law/treaty be voted by a separate roll call vote every seven
years to continue to be maintained in our laws.

There should also be some constitutional amendments to stifle congress’
borrowing and spending making it more difficult for that process. And a
constitutional amendment to limit the Interstate Commerce Clause. The
politicians use that clause to justify all sorts of socialist c&*$?%p. The
founding fathers never meant for it to be so broadly applied. Limit it
with an amendment, so government can’t justify every crazy idea by
saying its legal under the interstate commerce clause.

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 governments use of tax code to manipulate
people.

Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they meet the
income of the government. The best 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 to include a law in our
TAX amendment to the constitution that can’t be easily circumvented, to
force them to cut spending 3% for every 1% Congress raise taxes. So any
federal sales tax increase would result in automatic spending cuts using
a baseline of 10% taxes.

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.

An amendment that if congress raises tax by 1% they are forced to cut,every single expenditure of the government by 3%

admin — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:51:00 +0000

*HOW TO ALLOW AMERICA TO SURVIVE*
And give America back to Americans

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?

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a NATIONAL
“NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL HELP THE
DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money leaving the
country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the RED money
for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that point.

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. There needs to be one type
of dollar for use inside America and one type(color) of dollars for use
outside the USA. That will make it harder for smugglers to get money out
of the country and if they do spend it here then they will pay the sales
tax and that money is used to enforce the laws to catch smugglers. 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 and
giving a bonus to illegal activity. Sales tax will also encourage saving
money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can
borrow 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.

Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they meet the
income of the government. The best 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 to include a law in our
TAX amendment to the constitution that can’t be easily circumvented, to
force them to cut spending 3% for every 1% Congress raise taxes. So any
federal sales tax increase would result in automatic spending cuts using
a baseline of 10% taxes.

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.

the budget is cut $3.00 for every new $1.00 dollar in new, tax and spending.

admin — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 17:16:58 +0000

On 6/23/2011 12:37 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in news:4E023C99.3030507 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 6/22/2011 12:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>> wrote in news:4E01F572.2020502 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2011 8:14 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>> wrote
>>>>> in news:4E0130C3.6050709 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2011 6:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>>> wrote
>>>>>>> in news:4E010603.60505 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2011 11:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>>>>>> @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:4DFFBDE5.90903 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty >>> @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com">Everything @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What right is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without
>>> due
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from
>>> taxation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of
>>>>> higher
>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> you support Obama
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just where did you get that idea?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
>>>>>>>>>> which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
>>>>>>>>>> Liberal-Socialists.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In many cases, yes…….of course, the conservatives do the
>>>>>>>>> same damn thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the
>>>>> economy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>> will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather
>>>>>>>>>> than going out and earning more. That means less income to
>>>>>>>>>> tax and
>>>>> less
>>>>>>>>>> tax receipts into the Treasury.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Pay for some of the programs we are already paying on so we
>>>>>>>>> don’t have to borrow 41 cents on the dollar or learn to speak
>>>>>>>>> Mandarin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, that increase in taxes also needs to be accompanied by
>>>>> reducing
>>>>>>>>> government spending.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So then why don’t you suggest with your tax hike, there be a
>>>>>>>> three
>>> to
>>>>>>>> one cut in spending,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because that is what you want, not me. You need to present it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> where every one dollar in taxes Obama and
>>>>>>>> Democrats create in new spending… they have to cut across the
>>>>>>>> government equally every single expenditure in Federal
>>>>>>>> government spending on and off budget *three dollars*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This way it hurts to the government and it’s employees when they
>>>>> raise
>>>>>>>> my taxes and hurt me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to
>>> zero.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your idea will never happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only because it would work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then we would have all that revenue and nothing to spend it on…
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> $15 Trillion in debt to spend it on.
>>>>
>>>> $1.4 Trillion per year in new debt that you can spend it on…. it
>>>> would take 50 to 1000 years to pay off the waste that they’ve
>>>> already stuck America with.
>>>
>>> Not really. If you cut all spending, there would be no $1.4T per
>>> year in new debt. Additionally, the one could get $5.2T more in
>>> revenue in 10 years by ending the extended Bush tax cuts to both the
>>> rich and the middle class. Our current revenue even with that tax
>>> cut is $2.2T per year or for 10 years $22T. That would be a total of
>>> $27.2T in 10 years with no outlay (per your scenario) or a surplus of
>>> $12.9T in 10 years or zero debt in 5 years.
>>>
>>>> Then you have the money/services promised to medicare and Medicaid
>>>> and all the rest that they don’t have.
>>>
>>> IOW, your scenario didn’t mean to cut all spending.
>>>
>>
>> Cut all spending but that doesn’t pay for money already promised and
>> “already” spent but NOT yet paid out.
>>
>> Everything I mentioned is debt that we owe, even the unfunded promises
>> that we have been legally obligated to pay.
>
>
>
>>> That means that the parties would spend the next 10 years arguing
>>> about what should be cut……..ergo, no progress.
>>
>> NO I said nothing about what should be cut other than everything in
>> and out of the budget is cut $3.00 for every new $1.00 dollar in new
>> tax and spending.
>
> Then you added that if taxes went up 33% all spending would be shut off.
>
> “…raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to
> zero.”
>
> Do you remember posting that?

First you would have to cap all spending at current levels to NOT allow
any attempt at fudging.

Yes the outcome of raising the tax would be. Everything is cut equal
from paperclips to nuclear weapons to welfare.

There is nothing to fight about except “how much” to raise taxes.
Government raises taxes 10% and We the people will see government
spending drop by 30%. There are no questions about what to cut, it’s all
cut, paychecks to jet planes…… all of it.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 19:03:53 +0000

On 6/22/2011 12:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in news:4E01F572.2020502 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 6/21/2011 8:14 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> > wrote
>>> in news:4E0130C3.6050709 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2011 6:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>> wrote
>>>>> in news:4E010603.60505 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/21/2011 11:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>>>>> wrote in news:4DFFBDE5.90903 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty > @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com">Everything @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What right is that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without
> due
>>>>>>>>>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health care,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from
> taxation
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>> a right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of
>>> higher
>>>>>>>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> you support Obama
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just where did you get that idea?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
>>>>>>>> which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
>>>>>>>> Liberal-Socialists.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In many cases, yes…….of course, the conservatives do the same
>>>>>>> damn thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the
>>> economy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>> will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather than
>>>>>>>> going out and earning more. That means less income to tax and
>>> less
>>>>>>>> tax receipts into the Treasury.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pay for some of the programs we are already paying on so we don’t
>>>>>>> have to borrow 41 cents on the dollar or learn to speak Mandarin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, that increase in taxes also needs to be accompanied by
>>> reducing
>>>>>>> government spending.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So then why don’t you suggest with your tax hike, there be a three
> to
>>>>>> one cut in spending,
>>>>>
>>>>> Because that is what you want, not me. You need to present it.
>>>>>
>>>>> where every one dollar in taxes Obama and
>>>>>> Democrats create in new spending… they have to cut across the
>>>>>> government equally every single expenditure in Federal government
>>>>>> spending on and off budget *three dollars*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way it hurts to the government and it’s employees when they
>>> raise
>>>>>> my taxes and hurt me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to
> zero.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your idea will never happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Only because it would work.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then we would have all that revenue and nothing to spend it on…
>>
>>
>> $15 Trillion in debt to spend it on.
>>
>> $1.4 Trillion per year in new debt that you can spend it on…. it
>> would take 50 to 1000 years to pay off the waste that they’ve already
>> stuck America with.
>
> Not really. If you cut all spending, there would be no $1.4T per year in
> new debt. Additionally, the one could get $5.2T more in revenue in 10
> years by ending the extended Bush tax cuts to both the rich and the
> middle class. Our current revenue even with that tax cut is $2.2T per
> year or for 10 years $22T. That would be a total of $27.2T in 10 years
> with no outlay (per your scenario) or a surplus of $12.9T in 10 years or
> zero debt in 5 years.
>
>> Then you have the money/services promised to medicare and Medicaid and
>> all the rest that they don’t have.
>
> IOW, your scenario didn’t mean to cut all spending.
>

Cut all spending but that doesn’t pay for money already promised and
“already” spent but NOT yet paid out.

Everything I mentioned is debt that we owe, even the unfunded promises
that we have been legally obligated to pay.

> That means that the parties would spend the next 10 years arguing about
> what should be cut……..ergo, no progress.

NO I said nothing about what should be cut other than everything in and
out of the budget is cut $3.00 for every new $1.00 dollar in new tax and
spending.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:56:52 +0000

On 6/22/2011 12:02 PM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> > wrote:
>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>
>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of higher
>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>
>> you support Obama
>
> Sometimes.
>
>> and Obama said no taxes.
>
> He was wrong.
>
>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the economy.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Daddy Bush and Clinton raised taxes and the economy grew.
>
>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>
> reducing the deficit.

So far Obama has only grown the deficit and grown government and paid
off political operatives with every penny he can steal from America.

What proof do you have that Obama won’t lie again and waste all the new
taxes also.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 14:00:18 +0000

On 6/21/2011 8:14 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in news:4E0130C3.6050709 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 6/21/2011 6:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> > wrote
>>> in news:4E010603.60505 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/21/2011 11:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>>> wrote in news:4DFFBDE5.90903 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>>>>>> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What right is that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without due
>>>>>>>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health care,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from taxation
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> a right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of
> higher
>>>>>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you support Obama
>>>>>
>>>>> Just where did you get that idea?
>>>>>
>>>>> and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
>>>>>> which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
>>>>>> Liberal-Socialists.
>>>>>
>>>>> In many cases, yes…….of course, the conservatives do the same
>>>>> damn thing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the
> economy.
>>>>>>
>>>>> We
>>>>>> will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather than
>>>>>> going out and earning more. That means less income to tax and
> less
>>>>>> tax receipts into the Treasury.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Pay for some of the programs we are already paying on so we don’t
>>>>> have to borrow 41 cents on the dollar or learn to speak Mandarin.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, that increase in taxes also needs to be accompanied by
> reducing
>>>>> government spending.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So then why don’t you suggest with your tax hike, there be a three to
>>>> one cut in spending,
>>>
>>> Because that is what you want, not me. You need to present it.
>>>
>>> where every one dollar in taxes Obama and
>>>> Democrats create in new spending… they have to cut across the
>>>> government equally every single expenditure in Federal government
>>>> spending on and off budget *three dollars*
>>>>
>>>> This way it hurts to the government and it’s employees when they
> raise
>>>> my taxes and hurt me.
>>>>
>>>> raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to zero.
>>>
>>> Your idea will never happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Only because it would work.
>>
>
> Then we would have all that revenue and nothing to spend it on…

$15 Trillion in debt to spend it on.

$1.4 Trillion per year in new debt that you can spend it on…. it
would take 50 to 1000 years to pay off the waste that they’ve already
stuck America with.

Then you have the money/services promised to medicare and Medicaid and
all the rest that they don’t have.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 00:01:07 +0000

On 6/21/2011 6:17 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in news:4E010603.60505 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 6/21/2011 11:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>> wrote in news:4DFFBDE5.90903 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>>>> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What right is that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without due
>>>>>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health care,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from taxation
>>>>>>>> is
>>> not
>>>>>>>> a right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of higher
>>>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> you support Obama
>>>
>>> Just where did you get that idea?
>>>
>>> and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
>>>> which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
>>>> Liberal-Socialists.
>>>
>>> In many cases, yes…….of course, the conservatives do the same
>>> damn thing.
>>>
>>>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the economy.
>>>>
>>> We
>>>> will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather than
>>>> going out and earning more. That means less income to tax and less
>>>> tax receipts into the Treasury.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>>>
>>> Pay for some of the programs we are already paying on so we don’t
>>> have to borrow 41 cents on the dollar or learn to speak Mandarin.
>>>
>>>
>>>> To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?
>>>
>>> Nope, that increase in taxes also needs to be accompanied by reducing
>>> government spending.
>>
>>
>> So then why don’t you suggest with your tax hike, there be a three to
>> one cut in spending,
>
> Because that is what you want, not me. You need to present it.
>
> where every one dollar in taxes Obama and
>> Democrats create in new spending… they have to cut across the
>> government equally every single expenditure in Federal government
>> spending on and off budget *three dollars*
>>
>> This way it hurts to the government and it’s employees when they raise
>> my taxes and hurt me.
>>
>> raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to zero.
>
> Your idea will never happen.
>
>
>
Only because it would work.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 20:58:43 +0000

On 6/21/2011 11:24 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote
> in news:4DFFBDE5.90903 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
>>> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What right is that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without due
>>>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health care,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from taxation is
> not
>>>>>> a right.
>>>>>
>>>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>>>
>>>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of higher
>>>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.
>>
>>
>> you support Obama
>
> Just where did you get that idea?
>
> and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
>> which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
>> Liberal-Socialists.
>
> In many cases, yes…….of course, the conservatives do the same damn
> thing.
>
>> New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the economy.
> We
>> will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather than going
>> out and earning more. That means less income to tax and less tax
>> receipts into the Treasury.
>>
>>
>> And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?
>
> Pay for some of the programs we are already paying on so we don’t have to
> borrow 41 cents on the dollar or learn to speak Mandarin.
>
>
>> To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?
>
> Nope, that increase in taxes also needs to be accompanied by reducing
> government spending.

So then why don’t you suggest with your tax hike, there be a three to
one cut in spending, where every one dollar in taxes Obama and Democrats
create in new spending… they have to cut across the government
equally every single expenditure in Federal government spending on and
off budget *three dollars*

This way it hurts to the government and it’s employees when they raise
my taxes and hurt me.

raise taxes by 33% and they would be forced to cut spending to zero.

Reality bites.

If Anthony Weiner isn’t going to live up to his MARRIAGE vows then he also won’t live up to his OATH OF OFFICE.

admin — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:38:45 +0000

On 6/20/2011 4:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
> news:6t9vv6tjfpo0epjidfbkr7o26ahclclhi9 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>
>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >> wrote:
>>> On 6/20/2011 9:28 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> “Jeff Strickland” wrote:
>>>>> One’s right to health does not limit my right to wealth.
>>>>
>>>> What right is that?
>>>>
>>>> You have the right not to have your property taken without due
>>>> process, but taxes are covered by due process.
>>>>
>>>>> ObamaCare will tax me to cover the cost of your health care,
>>>>
>>>> So? Governments have the power to tax. Freedom from taxation is not
>>>> a right.
>>>
>>> So…. you and Obama are liars,
>>
>> No.
>>
>>> you said you would NOT raise taxes.
>>
>> I said no such thing. I have been consistently in favor of higher
>> taxes to balance the budget, ever since the recession ended.

you support Obama and Obama said no taxes. Until he passed ObamaCare
which was a tax in disguise. It’s all about perception with
Liberal-Socialists.

New taxes will do what ObamaCare is doing, it will kill the economy. We
will all spend more time trying to keep what we earn rather than going
out and earning more. That means less income to tax and less tax
receipts into the Treasury.

And second is…. *WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO SPEND NEW TAXES ON* ?

To pay for more wasted deficit spending like ObamaCare?

HEY — AMERICAN STUPIDS! DON’T READ FARTHER!

admin — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:27:38 +0000

On 6/12/2011 10:41 AM, Obwon-Gandalf-Hope IV wrote:
> NOTICE TO READERS:
>
> If you are of low IQ, bereft of brains, of shallow education — or
> simply seeking to pile-on more Obama-blame for YOUR perceived
> financial troubles — don’t bother to read Pearlstein’s piece. You
> simply won’t comprehend its import.
>
> But for fair-minded non-racists and other rational thinkers, it is
> among the most near-excellent exposition we’ve read recently of the
> reasons why the Sadly-Un-United States is floundering — under the
> burdens of globalization and economic leveling.
>
> ———————————
> “The trials of measuring and managing in a global economy”
>
> Op-Ed
> By Steven Pearlstein
> June 11, 2011
>
>
>
> MAYBE YOU’VE NOTICED that the economy has been acting strange lately:

Yes it is because it is NO longer an economy it is NOW a Department of
the federal Government, kind of like GM.

> Corporate profits and stock prices have grown much faster than the
> economy,

Grown on taxpayers money stolen by government and given to the
corporations that agree with Obama.

> while economic growth has significantly outpaced job growth.
> In the past, these things moved more in synch with each other.

Right in the opening statement the c&*$?%p is shoveled. There were no
shovel ready jobs except for the government ones Obama handed out to
people willing to shovel the propaganda Obama was spewing.

> The cause of this disconnect was assumed to be the rising productivity
> of American workers,

Like hell.

> which would be a good thing for the economy over
> the long run. Unlike past productivity gains, however, these haven’t
> generated increased incomes for most workers. Nor has this improved
> competitiveness translated into much improvement in the merchandise
> trade deficit.

It was all your imagination so why would it produce anything?

> And then there is the ongoing disconnect between short-term interest
> rates, longer-term rates and the pace of economic growth, which has
> frustrated the efforts of the Federal Reserve to bolster the recovery.

Frustrated their printing of money and NO interest loans? Spreading the
wealth around was a ridiculous and simple minded plan to begin with.

> The simplest explanation for all of these seeming abnormalities may be
> globalization,

Or it may be space aliens, but more likely it’s Obama’s plan to spend
and print and borrow and regulate and tax. It is called stagflation
and it’s here thanks to Obama. This time it will make Jimmy “the loser”
Carter look like a competent President in comparison.

> which has fundamentally altered the structure and
> dynamic of economic activity. And because of the dramatic increase in
> the flow of goods and capital across borders, the vocabulary we use to
> talk about the economy, the statistics we have to measure it and some
> of the tools we have used to manage it have become obsolete.

So you want to redefine everything in much more favorable terms for your
“NEW” Socialism that you want.

> A frequent mistake — one of which I am as guilty as anyone — is using
> the performance of the broad U.S. stock market indexes, and the
> companies that comprise them, as a proxy for the performance of the
> U.S. economy.

They are all winners they drop the losers so it’s NOT an economic
measure it is only a measure of winners. The losers are dropped and
never heard from again. Why would you measure your economics against an
international corporation?

> Until the late 1990s, that might have been a reasonable
> presumption. Since then, however, most of the large companies
> reflected in those indexes have transformed themselves into global
> enterprises with global supply chains, global sales, global workforces
> and global sources of capital. That their shares are listed on a U.S.
> stock exchange is something of an historical artifact.
>
> Standard & Poor analyst Howard Silverblatt calculates that, for the
> 250 companies in the S&P 500 that break out sales by geographic
> region, roughly half of sales and profits now come from overseas. This
> probably overstates the situation for the S&P 500 as a whole, because
> the companies that don’t break out foreign sales tend to be smaller or
> operate domestically. But even if you figure that the average for the
> entire group is closer to a third, this is no longer your
> grandfather’s S&P 500.

This is all stuff you should have already known. Obama touts the
market is UP and yet it’s meaningless to me since I don’t do business
around the world and I don’t get government bail out cash.

> Since 1989, the Commerce Department has surveyed large U.S.-based
> multinationals — the most global of U.S. companies — to determine the
> scope of their foreign activities. The results are pretty striking.
> Among nonbank multinationals, the portion of sales attributed to
> foreign-owned affiliates has jumped from 33 percent in 1989 to 62
> percent in 2009. During the same period, the foreign share of total
> employment has jumped from 21 percent to 33 percent, while the foreign
> share of capital expenditures has risen from 22 percent to 27 percent.
>
> This data confirm the anecdotal impression one gets from corporate
> executives that big U.S. companies are growing much faster abroad than
> they are at home. And it is largely because of this that their profits
> are near record levels despite the lackluster recovery at home.

Because of Obama regulation and taxes and Redistribution, the
corporations are expanding away from the United States.

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-trials-of-measuring-and-managing-in-a-global-economy/2011/06/06/AGZxdbQH_story.html?nav=emailpage

“U.S. Government Is Defaulting on the Average American All the Time.” < < < GO NWO!!!

admin — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:52:17 +0000

On 6/7/2011 1:37 PM, Uno Hu wrote:
> Mr.B1ack wrote in message
> news:rthsu6htmnjtjtfke59obm85sc4djugbc2 @&*$?%4ax.com
>
>> Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>
>>> Ron Paul: “U.S. Government Is Defaulting on the Average American All
>>> the Time.”
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yea ? Well, those Average Americans have had decades, indeed
>> centuries now, to surge into DC and leave a corrupt or idiot
>> faux-’representative’ dangling from every handy tree. They
>> haven’t done it. Even that little thing in 1860 was a very
>> indirect way of addressing bad reps.
>>
>> Some countries flush the toilet on an almost regular basis.
>> Doesn’t take much to piss-off the population. However in
>> the USA …. seems Americans will put up with ANYTHING.
>> Unfortunately, the ‘leadership’ KNOWS this ……
>>
>> And hence the problem.
>>
>
> The recent LIES to the american public is a NEW thing.
> It has never been as bad as it has become since Carter.
>
> The wretched neocon/republicans changed the game.. they’ve become
> out-and out LIARS and rapacious thieves. Criminals.

Fighting fire with fire…..

Government jobs are the NEW WELFARE

admin — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:31:03 +0000

On 6/5/2011 12:04 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
> http://consortiumnews.com/2011/06/03/making-the-us-economy-scream/
>
> The problem with the Republicans’ slash and burn approach is their
> party has already acquired the approval rating of a schizophrenic
> libertarian spree shooter.
>
> They ended up slashing and burning their own party.
>
> This is true any time but it is particularly true nowadays with dirt
> cheap communications. The pseudo liberal media cannot do a whole lot
> to keep up the facade that the U. S. is a vibrant democracy when the
> GOP is very openly and brazenly trying to destroy the U. S. economy.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

The Republicans moved to far towards the Progressives… that’s what
gets them the “approval rating of a schizophrenic” Democrat-Progressive
“spree shooter.”

Obama is the one trying to destroy the capitalist economy with his
Progressive REDISTRIBUTION.

You can’t have Social Justice and Equal Justice at the same time, they
can NOT coexist. That goes for Capitalism and
Progressive-Redistribution… they can NOT coexist. When you forcibly
take the wealth from one person and give it to others, suddenly the
people that had worked for money no longer have any need to work for money.

There isn’t enough money to allow the Nation to sit back and NOT work.

*Government jobs are the NEW WELFARE*

Look at the government police and the other government workers, their as
fat as the welfare queens ever were.

Government jobs are like welfare, they both sit on their a&*$?%s and collect
a government check for doing nothing.

Are you going to believe Bret Cahill or your Lying eyes.

Why Don’t Right To Lifers Support Government Paying 50% of Child Support?

admin — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:09:32 +0000

On 6/1/2011 9:36 PM, Clave wrote:
> “Beam Me Up Scotty” @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote in
> message news:4DE6D5B8.5050906 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>
> < ...most immigration offenses are CIVIL...>
>
>> so he says a paper work SNAFU is NOT a criminal act….. that happens
>> 1000 times a year.
>
> Too complicated for you?
>
> Jim

You’re the one not able to see that only a few illegals are NOT
criminals…. they are paperwork violators and once caught the
paperwork should be reconciled and either deport them or file the
paperwork.

Once deported they can only come back as a “CRIMINAL”.

Get rid of income tax and replace it with a NEW ITEM sales tax, and cut
out welfare and free stuff for anyone in America and make drugs legal
and get prostitution legalized in more States and then you could open
the borders without all the paperwork and all illegals could be here to
work and do it legally like all the people that have done it legally in
the past.

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Fri, 27 May 2011 16:19:10 +0000

On 5/27/2011 8:47 AM, SaPeIsMa wrote:
> “Bob LeChevalier” wrote in message
> news:saput6577s0qeqqn05da02bebr7jihqras @&*$?%4ax.com…
>> “SaPeIsMa” wrote:
>>> “Bob LeChevalier” wrote in message
>>> news:hrlst6toonvbl3hkub117s90j4rr24k483 @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>
>>>> I do. You obviously don’t. “Waiver” does not generally mean
>>>> “individual mandate”.
>>>
>>> Do you really enjoy mental masturbation on a public forum ?
>>> So I’ll keep it simple for the simpletons…
>>>
>>> a) A group (in the name of the individuals of said group)
>>
>> The waiver is NOT “in the name of the individuals”. In general it is
>> a waiver on whether the insurance they offer has to meet all of the
>> standards of Obamacare, which standards are pretty high. A waiver
>> might exempt them from one or two provisions, or it might be providing
>> care in a different way than the Obamacare standards were intended
>> for. But it is the company or organization providing the insurance
>> that gets a waiver for THEMSELVES, from provisions that require THEM
>> to meet certain obligations.

>> b) is false. The individual mandate is merely a requirement that you
>> get insurance, or pay an assessment. If a waiver is granted to an
>> organization, individuals still have to buy insurance or pay an
>> assessment. It might mean that the insurance that you get from your
>> company, or the AARP, is below the Obamacare standards in some aspect
>> (or it might mean that it simply deals with something in a way
>> incompatible with the Obamacare standards, but still provides
>> equivalent coverage). But it is still insurance, and thus you are
>> following the individual mandate if you have it.

Obama has set the stage to force our Insurance coverage to change to
ObamaCare standards…. that is causing Insurance companies to say they
will follow the Obama law and they will change the policy and the cost
to you the customer.

The companies and unions and States that offer insurance with a job
often pay a portion of your cost of the insurance so their costs will
rise as well as the cost to the customer using the insurance.

Obama is Handing out *WAIVERS* so that twelve months before his
re-election, ObamaCare won’t be tossing people off of their insurance
plans that Obama said they could keep. Obviously ObamaCare can’t do
both. ObamaCare will either be in effect and dump hundreds of thousands
off their current health care due to insurance companies closing or
changing their present package or Obama has to give out waivers to stave
off the dumping of all the people that are in insurance plans that are
NOT ObamaCare compliant.

Obama has to give waivers to any entity that will kill their insurance
plan or he will be facing an angry electorate in November 2012.

This amounts to *BUYING VOTES* by using waivers to allow voters to keep
their present sub ObamaCare insurance until after the Obama Campaign
Election is past…..

*AFTER THE ELECTION, ALL YOU PEOPLE ON WAIVERS WILL BE TOSSED OFF*
*YOUR INSURANCE PLANS AND BE FORCED TO GET NEW PLANS THAT WILL*
*COST MORE, SO THAT YOUR INSURANCE WILL MEET OBAMACARE STANDARDS*

*GOOD LUCK AFFORDING IT*

*AT SOME POINT YOU WILL LIKELY BE FORCED INTO A SUBSIDIZED*
*GOVERNMENT INSURANCE POOL*

Sign the Christian Coalition of America’s Petition for the Repeal of ObamaCare

admin — Wed, 25 May 2011 22:00:21 +0000

On 5/25/2011 4:46 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier wrote in
> news:ua4qt6tb38jbk0sn106jordujtj1n82p58 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>
>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> >> wrote:
>>> On 5/24/2011 6:13 PM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>>> Then they should pay for ALL school lunches for ALL individuals.
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise your excuse of national security doesn’t hold up.
>>>
>>> Excellent point, National security means that the government hands
> every
>>> soldier their gun and feeds them while in the military…. if
> children
>>> need to eat to prepare, then they all need the same food for the same
>>> reason.
>>>
>>> all or none…
>>
>> By that reasoning, ever person in the country would be handed a gun,
>> not just every soldier, and everyone would be in the military from
>> birth to death.
>>
>> Sorry, but that is not a constitutional requirement.
>
> Article I(8)(16)
>
> “To provide for organizing, *ARMING*, and disciplining, the Militia…..”
>
> 10 USC 311
>
> “TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
>
> § 311. Militia: composition and classes
>
> (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at
> least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,
> under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
> intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens
> of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
> (b) The classes of the militia are—
> (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
> Naval Militia; and
> (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia
> who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
>
> Now, I would not get a free gun as I am over 45 years of age.

You have just proven that legally, children’s lunches are NOT National
Security as per the Militia and National Guard. The Militia/Guard are
already tasked with that and school children are too young to be sucked
into National Security by law.

I guess that the military will be forced to take malnourished American
RUNTS that don’t get enough to eat…. WON’T THAT BE A NEW PROBLEM!

OH Canada!

admin — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 20:04:05 +0000

> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:30:40 -0700, “spameraser”
> wrote:
>
>>
>> “429,000 More Workers Fired in Obamaconomy”
>> wrote in message news:IiLup.29278$8U5.26593 @&*$?%newsfe20.iad…
>>> http://gasbuddy.com/GB_Price_List.aspx

Why did McDonald’s commit to hire 50,000 and Lowe’s and Home Depot hire
“new” people and make a big propaganda deal about it, was it pay back
for getting an *OBAMACARE WAIVERS* ?

Something smells…..

Obama knew this month was going to see bad numbers. Is this like the
Clinton’s 100,000 NEW cops on the streets that never came to pass, and
it turns out was more like 30,000 cops and most of them were fired and
rehired or transferred to a “new job” so they could be called “NEW” on
the job.

Is this an Obama scam that’s up and running. But the numbers are
sticking in Obama’s craw. Did McDonald’s fire 40,000 workers and hire
50,000 new ones? Is this a case of a new shell game being run on the
people that believe what they see on TV?

Hiring and firing are up, the NET gain for the Obama-economy is that
there are more people collecting unemployment this week.

Is Ron Paul turning wimpy on illegal immigration?

admin — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 18:45:27 +0000

>
>
> “Iconoclast” wrote in message
> news:ce12eaa8-4bf4-4fa8-89ae-7b600af2d169 @&*$?%t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com…
>
> On Apr 30, 9:05 am, “ J&*$?%a” wrote:
>> Does anyone have a solution to the illegal immigration problem? If you
>> believe there is a solution, what is the solution?
>>

And give America back to Americans

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?

http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12541&title=portugal-legalizes-drugs–crime-usage-falls

The Drug dealers would have Red money that they need to exchange for
green money, makes it hard to do in large amounts and hard to spend and
more expensive to deal with….. that *makes Drug smuggling less*
*profitable* as would dropping the income tax and installing a NATIONAL
“NEW ITEM” SALES TAX *NOT* IMPLEMENTING A VAT TAX WHICH WILL HELP THE
DRUG DEALERS and illegals by making their tax free money leaving the
country even more valuable. If they had to buy/exchange the RED money
for GREEN money then you would charge the sales tax at that point.

http://www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSISBBVD/PPSIM280/PR

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 to
the amendment that if congress raises sales tax by 1% they are forced to
cut every single expenditure of the government by 3%.

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. There needs to be one type
of dollar for use inside America and one type(color) of dollars for use
outside the USA. That will make it harder for smugglers to get money out
of the country and if they do spend it here then they will pay the sales
tax and that money is used to enforce the laws to catch smugglers. 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 and
giving a bonus to illegal activity. Sales tax will also encourage saving
money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you can
borrow 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.

There should also be some constitutional amendments to stifle congress’
borrowing and spending making it more difficult for that process. And a
constitutional amendment to limit the Interstate Commerce Clause. The
politicians use that clause to justify all sorts of socialist c&*$?%p. The
founding fathers never meant for it to be so broadly applied. Limit it
with an amendment, so government can’t justify every crazy Socialist
idea by saying its legal under the interstate commerce clause.

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. The way to limit
some of the Presidents spending is to put an amendment in the
constitution, and limit the Executive branch to 1% of the Nations income
for foreign aid. That should reduce the Presidents buying of other
Nations “friendship”.

To quit filling the jails with people over *social taboos* , we need to
take away congress’ ability to “social engineer” the businesses or the
private people by removing the governments use of IRS tax code to
manipulate people. Getting rid of the Income tax and IRS as suggested
above will do that.

Government needs to spend 10% less every year until they meet the
income of the government. The best way, is to
*use_both_cutting_and_taxing* , the Congress should implement a rule to
force an across the board spending cap at 20% of GDP and then across the
board cuts on the government spending, to include a law in our TAX
amendment to the constitution that can’t be easily circumvented, to
force them to cut spending 3% for every 1% Congress raise taxes. So any
federal sales tax increase would result in automatic 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 also need fewer crimes for people to be
committing(fewer laws), we need fewer police and prisons to support….
and the above drug and tax plan, will reduce police and prison needs by
at least that 10% that this plan suggested cutting each year.

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.

Conservatives should demand 15% decrease in Defense spending.

admin — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 01:36:57 +0000

On 4/13/2011 6:18 PM, Robert not Roberto wrote:
> “walt tonne” wrote in message
> news:817b185f-dfe2-4e78-a26d-bda7094b15ce @&*$?%a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com…
>> Current levels of spending are obscene. Almost a billion to date in
>> Libya, 54 thousand milititary
>> in Germany, 35 thousand in South Korea. Thousands scattered around the
>> middle east.
>> Bring em’ home, put 20,000 on the borders. Cheaper to discharge many
>> and put them on unemployment.
>
> I’m a Conservative and I agree with you. The Republicans would have a lot
> more credibility if they put everything on the chopping block including
> defense.
>
>