OutSourcedNews-Group » Progressives

YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU ?

admin — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:50:47 +0000

On 2/8/2012 12:31 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:23:53 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You Progressives think that sidestepping the 2/3 rule in the
>> constitution in Article 5 is somehow a legitimate way to make changes to
>> the constitution
>
> You pathetic fool
>
> Interpreting a (enacted) law in relation to the constitution, existing
> law (stare decisis) does not alter the constitution.

It is adding government powers that were NOT there the previous day.

Can you say ex post facto law?

Socialism and Mafia combined to create Progressivism…. Democrats seem to have accepted the Progressive Mafia as their ruling elite.

admin — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:09:41 +0000

I have been looking for the best way to describe Progressivism and Obama
and it turns out…. Obama and his Progressivism is like Organized
crime, it moves into a city like Washington and takes over.

They extort you and tell you how to live and start “taxing” you for
being alive and sell insurance in case something bad might happen… or
actually so that something bad won’t happen.

Once they get entrenched in a city it’s impossible to get rid of the
Mafia and once they have infiltrated our businesses they won’t let go
and once they are in government they will stay for ever.

Obama and his progressives are that organized crime, sure Bill and
Hillary the progressives were Mafia like and may have been the first or
maybe it goes all the way back to JFK but the Democrats seem to have
accepted the Progressive Mafia as their ruling elite.

So here we are with a Progressive President from the biggest Mafia town
of all and he ignores the constitution as they ignore all laws.
Washington is now the home of the Mafia and they call themselves
Progressives. Progressives seem to be of all political stripes but to
be sure they are all criminals and all Mafia types. Obama is a
Socialist ideologue, Clinton a pragmatic socialist and from the JFK
assassination on till today all the Democrats have really been
Socialists. JFK was the last real Democrat to ever become President,
since then all have been Socialists and most of those were progressive
Mafia types.

Like the old Mafia Family heads they all had a distinct style, well so
does Obama. He’s a little less polished than Clinton but they both had
that Mafia “glint in their eye”. The fact that Obama is a bit more like
a bull in a china shop, makes it easier to see the Obama Mafia
connection and it is magnified by his arrogance.

Obama will try to direct this tax offset to the rich, what that will do is get more of the working man Average Joe’s fired

admin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:06:59 +0000

On 2/8/2012 12:19 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:08:36 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>> OK…. Obama will get some taxes raised, what will this do is cause the
>>>> people hiring t
>>>
>>> Explain why that did not happen in decades where taxation was high,
>>> marginal rates high, unemployment low, creation of jobs was greater,
>>> the middle class had oodles of money to spend……..
>>
>> We were capitalists then.
>>
>> Explain why Obama is buying GM and running it and that was never done in
>> the past?
>
> For the 20,000 jobs and massive infrastructure it would have destroyed
> had it collapsed, idiot.

Why does the government need to buy jobs?

>
> The money was paid back

NO.

>
>> This is Socialism, our economy will NOT do what it is supposed to do.
>
> THre is NO SUCH THING as “socialism” you halfwitted twat.

Now whose sounding like an idiot?

>>
>>> Hasn’t it dawned on you yet —the argument that “high taxes” have
>>> nothing to do with high unemployment.
>>
>> Actually they have a lot to do with it, otherwise we would have been a
>> basket case before the 1913 Income tax was created. Yet they were some
>> really good times for America. America started from a nasty war and
>> grew to a real power without those HIGH TAXES.
>
> America grew to a huge industrial power for many reasons—one of
> which was the policy of government which allowed, or even enforced
> business laws against the people it represented.

And look where that took us?

>
> While it lasted–it created a huge underclass, misery, sickness,
> disfranchised and disallusioned people who eventually “looked at”
> Communism as a valid answer to counter the squalor and mistreatment
> they were getting here.

People rob banks because they are too lazy to work.

>
> Fortunately PROGRESSIVES (like T.R Roosevelt) started the ball rolling
> and by the early 30′s—the National government “got smart” and began
> to side with people.

And those people are still standing with their out, it’s pitiful that
they’re so useless they can’t even keep themselves alive…. the
government has to give them everything. And now the government can’t
steal enough to take care of them all, how smart is that?

When people are hanging government politicians from lamp posts I laugh
at you….

> The fortunes, wealth, leadership that emerged along with a huge
> growing middle class was due to economic, tax, regulatory, and
> enforcement policy which the expanding industrial base did VERY WELL
> with

until it didn’t.

>
> The advent of your raygun “trickle-down” c&*$?%p is why the middle class
> is broke, wages are stagnate, 15,000,000 without jobs, 60,000,000 w/0
> HC and approaching $16 Trillion debt.

That’s the government you just said was wonderful…. so what you
really mean is that government under “your” control can be utopia or it
can be evil and hellish under a Reagan. This is what you created,
didn’t we stop the Germans from achieving another government created
Utopia by banning the NAZI party from doing what you want to do and have
done to America?

The problem is you can’t guarantee that utopia, that’s why you have to
settle for either reasonably benign limited government or swing from the
extreme Utopia to back to extreme evil…..

The best idea it to pull the teeth of government so it can NOT be
Utopian or Hellish.

YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU ?

admin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 23:23:53 +0000

On 2/7/2012 2:18 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:28:25 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>> THere is NO wording in the constittuion specifically saying that—is
>>>> there?
>>
>>
>> That is “MY” point, when the wording is lacking(NOT THERE) and there is
>> no power delegated, the Federal Government has no power for that. So
>> you are agreeing with me!
>
> As interpreted by whom?
>
> You keep telling us what YOU “interpret” ya dumb a&*$?%e.

I’m telling you what the document says, you are telling us what you
think the white space in the document contains. You conjure up all sorts
of things that don’t exist anywhere in the document and yet all you need
to do is pass an amendment to get it in there, but it’s easier to add to
the constitution by getting 5 Justices to vote your way than to get 2/3
of the Legislature and 3/4 of the States to pass and ratify the amendment.

You Progressives think that sidestepping the 2/3 rule in the
constitution in Article 5 is somehow a legitimate way to make changes to
the constitution, I’m here telling you it is NOT constitutional. The
fact you won’t listen doesn’t surprise me, in fact I expected it because
I’ve studied the Progressives behavior, a piss poor group of worthless
human debris if there ever was any…..

["Article. V.
*The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses* shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case,
shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, *when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths* of
the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first
and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that
no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage
in the Senate."]

Progressives found out with Prohibition, that hiding things in thousands of pages of laws and court minutia would make it harder to unwind their twisted web of lies and deceit.

admin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 22:33:33 +0000

On 2/7/2012 5:05 PM, P&*$?%s wrote:
> On 2/7/2012 12:45 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> P&*$?%s wrote in news:jgs07m$50g$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>
>>> On 2/7/2012 12:00 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> P&*$?%s wrote in
>>>> news:jgrsaj$8rm$2 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/7/2012 9:28 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> P&*$?%s wrote in
>>>>>> news:jgpt18$o0o$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/6/2012 4:23 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “ P&*$?%s” wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:jgpk60$76b$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2012 1:13 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Josh wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:jgmqvc$69d$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2012 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Josh wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jgkboi$ec4$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/4/2012 2:22 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Sid9″ wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jgjup8$6hm$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be social policy to prevent those who can afford
>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance from sponging off taxpayers for their medical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care. All this does is make coverage mandatory for those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who would other wise free load on the rest of us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And how do you suppoese it will be imposed on illegals?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all,
>>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are about half of those uninsured and use EMTALA like their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> primary
>>>>>>>>>>>> care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physician.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Isn’t that solved by however we choose to solve the illegal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> immigration issue be it deportation or normalization, the
>>>> latter
>>>>>>>>>>>>> would include an insurance mandate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Only works if they are working. It is against the law for
>>>>>>>>>>>> them
>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be in this country. EMTALA says that all will be treated in
>>>>>>>>>>>> emergency rooms regardless of ability to pay.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Didn’t I just say above the problem is solved by either
>>>>>>>>>>> deporting the illegals or normalizing them? Either way, we
>>>>>>>>>>> would no longer have illegals in this country. Thus, you are
>>>>>>>>>>> bringing up a tangential issue to the insurance mandate that
>>>>>>>>>>> has its own solution independent of the insurance mandate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The issue was part and parcel of a greater issue and shows
>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup drift. The original issue that I came in on was the
>>>>>>>>>> individual mandate where a failure to purchase private
>>>>>>>>>> insurance could result in jail time and that, IMHO, the federal
>>>>>>>>>> government does not have the constitutional power to mandate
>>>>>>>>>> that an individual citizen must purchase a product produced by
>>>>>>>>>> a private party.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It doesn’t even have authority to mandate that an individual
>>>> citizen
>>>>>>>>> must purchase a product from a *public* party, hell, *ANY* party
>>>> for
>>>>>>>>> that matter.
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>> Sandman’s post of the following may be the model that the USSC
>>>>>>>> will use to justify the insurance mandate in Obamacare:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “However, if you wish to see if there is any constitutional
>>>>>>>> reason for Social Security, for example, look at Helvering v
>>>>>>>> Davis, 301 US 619 (1937) in which the Court sustained the old age
>>>>>>>> benefits provisions of the Social Securities Act of 1935.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Writing for the majority, Justice Benjamin Cordozo adopted an
>>>>>>>> expansive view of the federal taxing and spending power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He judged the old age benefits of the Social Security Act
>>>>>>>> constitutional pursuant to ArtI(8) if the Constitution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He pointed out that the Act was born in response to a
>>>>>>>> “nation-wide calamity” that was unsolvable without a concentrated
>>>>>>>> federal effort.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where in Article III is the judiciary empowered to solve a
>>>>>>> “nation-wide calamity”?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hint: it isn’t there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The judiciary delegated powers that it doesn’t have any authority
>>>>>>> to delegate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are TWO authorized ways to change the constitution:
>>>>>>> Amendment (per Article V) and Revolution (per Declaration of
>>>>>>> Independence).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is NO other way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Social Security is unconstitutional. It may be the law, but it is
>>>>>>> without basis. That fact is indisputable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tell it to the Supremes. They have ruled against you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, they have. It makes it the law, but it doesn’t make it right.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I make no claims on whether or not Supreme Court decisions are
>>>> right, just on what they decided. For example, we can just about all
>>>> say that they were wrong on Wickard v Fillmore, Dredd Scott, Kelo v
>>>> City of New Londin and Citizens United. However, those cases still
>>>> decided the law.
>>>
>>> Don’t forget Roe v. Wade that legalized murder.
>>>
>>> Yep, that’s the law. It should not be permitted to be overturned, it
>>> should be corrected via Amendment V (et alii).
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Why do you keep referring to Article V, the amendment process? There are
>> beaucoup potential amendments introduced several times a year. So far,
>> only 17 have made it.
>
> And that is a good thing.

That’s why so few make it, and so few are actually brought up for votes.

It should have been forced on many more issues that were instead
referred to the courts to unconstitutionally “update” the constitution
and laws with court opinions and rulings.

The Progressives found out with Prohibition, that hiding things in
thousands of pages of laws and court minutia would make it harder to
unwind their twisted web of lies and deceit.

would you save the life of someone if you were put in a position to require you risk your life,

admin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:13:26 +0000

On 2/1/2012 7:39 PM, Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Jan 31, 10:48 am, “Clave” wrote:
>> “Clave” wrote in message news:…
>
>>> Look, your absolute black/white “abortion is always murder” position has
>>> consequences, one of which is just what I said above.
>
>> Embarrassed enough to obfuscate the subject line.
>
> I found the following moderate religious perspective on abortion:
> http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Social-Statements/Abortion.aspx
>
> But many religious groups seem to hold that evil actions should be
> used to combat what they consider to be wrong.

I’m neither religious or moderate…

HOW do you take a MODERATE POSITION when someone is killing children?

Tell me how you can agree that “some” kids should be killed?

*Life* is either a live human or it is NOT…. do we execute the half
living because they are less deserving of humanities respect?

If someone murders your family, how will you moderate those actions,
will you say that your family deserved to die because they ate too much
food? Or the planet was over populated so it was OK that someone
murdered them with a hatchet?

I have never suggested that killing people was the correct way to stop
the killing of babies in a women’s uterus.

The moral question is, would you save the life of someone if you were
put in a position to require you risk your life, had you just watched
them kill/torture another human life without any remorse?

We have gun rights in the *BILL of RIGHTS*, because it is written in the
constitution but Abortion is NOT in the constitution and needs to be
controlled as it is the killing of human life.

Every where we let Liberals define the issues, they create mythical
RIGHTS and frame our actual RIGHTS as if they are NOT freedoms but
issues of legitimate controlling of the population. Except you don’t
need to regulate freedom.

If Einstein was correct and time and
space means there is a multiverse and all things are happening at all
times, you are aborting children that actually live in other universes.
You are killing people that should and do already exist.

Because you know there is a multiverse universe where abortion doesn’t
exist, and they aren’t killing life in the uterus and that baby is still
alive and grows up to make their world a better place.

If you abort a child in the present time line aren’t you killing a human
that already exists or has a child of their own that cures cancer in a
future time line? Is the universe a better place when you are altering
that universe by killing a human life. How many Einstein’s and Mother
Teresa’s have been aborted? What happens when you do as the
Terminator does in that movie and the Terminator is there to kill Sarah
Connor, to stop the son who changes human history? The show is fiction
the premise of time and space being changed is Science.

Even science suggests that killing your own posterity is against the
constitution and the preamble of the constitution. And Science suggests
that abortion is against the Natural order of the universe.

That is…. if you believe in Science and time/space as suggested by
Einstein you wouldn’t kill your kids and kids kids and their kids.

Funny thing is the “educated” apparently don’t grasp the
concepts of Einstein and so they argue for abortion because their
omnipotence and their education exposes their attempt to ignore the
science they say they worship.

The self proclaimed “smart people” Progressives bury their heads in the
sand, they are selfish and more than happy to rationalize the killing of
other humans and altering the universe. They are shallow.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

admin — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:54:37 +0000

On 2/6/2012 5:12 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote in
> news:4F304345.5080808 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 4:07 PM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
>>> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:03:05 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 3:24 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> P&*$?%s wrote in
>>>>> news:jgp9f9$62h$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/6/2012 11:17 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> P&*$?%s wrote in
>>>>>>> news:jgp76a$pdc$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2012 12:30 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “Stormin Mormon“ @&*$?%hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:othXq.28856$4c4.24148 @&*$?%news.usenetserver.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All of them. Might take a five or ten year gradual phase out.
>>>>>>>>>> But, we’ll be better off without them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That depends. Between my wife and I we get two of them. Of
>>>>>>>>> course,
>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> paid into Social Security since 1951….and we both pay into
>>>>> Medicare
>>>>>>>>> every month.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of them should go. You are the proud beneficiary of
>>>>>>>> benevolence through compulsion. That doesn’t make it right.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But forget that, for a moment. If you think they should stay,
>>>>>>>> just point out where they are authorized in the constitution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have already done that but if you missed it, please read the
>>>>>>> preamble…particularly the part about the “general welfare“. It
>>>>>>> has been bandied about like the Commerce Clause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are no powers conferred in the preamble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The ‘general welfare‘ clause, as found in the body, is a condition
>>>>>> on powers delegated elsewhere. There is no “general welfare”
>>>>>> power.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, if you wish to see if there is any constitutional reason
>>>>> for Social Security, for example, look at Helvering v Davis, 301 US
>>>>> 619 (1937) in which the Court sustained the old age benefits
>>>>> provisions of the Social Securities Act of 1935.
>>>>
>>>> How is it constitutional to discriminate against gender and race and
>>>> other DNA that allows some people to live longer than others, women
>>>> for instance live longer, that means taking forced payments from men
>>>> and giving that to women who will live longer is sexist
>>>> discrimination.
>>>>
>>>> The whole Social Security plan is racist sexist discrimination
>>>> against people based on their DNA. If you support Social Security
>>>> you are a sexist and a racist.
>>>
>>> You are f&*$?%g insane.
>>
>> In other words, you have no way to explain why you favor
>> discriminating against people based on sex, race and other DNA
>> proclivities?
>
> Who is discriminating against people based on sex, race and other DNA
> proclivities? Do even have the slightest idea what some of those words
> mean?

Some of them…. but for you I’ll add to it. Some people have blue and
some have brown eyes, yet they are from the same parents. That you have
one or the other is DNA and NOT something that is always known at
conception.

It’s NOT a DNA absolute.

pro·cliv·i·ties
A natural propensity or inclination; predisposition

People with blue eyes can sometimes make blue eyed offspring, but the
inclination or likely outcome is that when brown eyes mate with blue
eyes the darker colors show up more often but NOT always.

Call it the mail man factor?

>> Why do you *hate black men* who die young?
>>
>>
>> That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:00:20 +0000

On 2/6/2012 4:07 PM, @&*$?%dudu.org">deep @&*$?%dudu.org wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:03:05 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/6/2012 3:24 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> P&*$?%s wrote in news:jgp9f9$62h$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 2/6/2012 11:17 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> P&*$?%s wrote in news:jgp76a$pdc$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/5/2012 12:30 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> “Stormin Mormon“ @&*$?%hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:othXq.28856$4c4.24148 @&*$?%news.usenetserver.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All of them. Might take a five or ten year gradual phase out. But,
>>>>>>>> we’ll be better off without them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That depends. Between my wife and I we get two of them. Of course,
>>> I
>>>>>>> paid into Social Security since 1951….and we both pay into
>>> Medicare
>>>>>>> every month.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them should go. You are the proud beneficiary of benevolence
>>>>>> through compulsion. That doesn’t make it right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But forget that, for a moment. If you think they should stay, just
>>>>>> point out where they are authorized in the constitution.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already done that but if you missed it, please read the
>>>>> preamble…particularly the part about the “general welfare“. It has
>>>>> been bandied about like the Commerce Clause.
>>>>
>>>> There are no powers conferred in the preamble.
>>>>
>>>> The ‘general welfare‘ clause, as found in the body, is a condition on
>>>> powers delegated elsewhere. There is no “general welfare” power.
>>>
>>> However, if you wish to see if there is any constitutional reason for
>>> Social Security, for example, look at Helvering v Davis, 301 US 619
>>> (1937) in which the Court sustained the old age benefits provisions of
>>> the Social Securities Act of 1935.
>>
>> How is it constitutional to discriminate against gender and race and
>> other DNA that allows some people to live longer than others, women for
>> instance live longer, that means taking forced payments from men and
>> giving that to women who will live longer is sexist discrimination.
>>
>> The whole Social Security plan is racist sexist discrimination against
>> people based on their DNA. If you support Social Security you are a
>> sexist and a racist.
>
> You are f&*$?%g insane.

In other words, you have no way to explain why you favor discriminating
against people based on religion, sex, race and other DNA proclivities?
Unmarried men die younger…. marriage is a religious tenet.

Why do you *hate black men* who die young?

["Furthermore, wealthier individuals generally have higher life
expectancies and thus may expect to receive larger benefits for a longer
period than poorer taxpayers.[123] A single individual who dies before
age 62, who is more likely to be poor, receives no retirement benefits
despite his years of paying Social Security tax. On the other hand, an
individual who lives to age 100, who is more likely to be wealthy, is
guaranteed payments that are more than he paid into the system.[124] An
NBER volume edited by Martin Feldstein and Jeffrey Liebman called The
Distributional Aspects of Social Security points out that members of
racial minorities with lower than average life expectancies and lower
than average rates of marriage may also suffer from the program on
average.”]

That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

When you delete the content of the post to try and make your reply lies
look plausible…. I will re-post the entire document to show what you
are doing. It’s hopeless to crop, cut and delete the facts and then lie
in an attempt to make your BS sound believable.

the FACTS HERE SAY IT CLEARLY ENOUGH.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:41:42 +0000

Why do you *hate black men* who die young?

That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:16:53 +0000

In other words, you have no way to explain why you favor discriminating
against people based on sex, race and other DNA proclivities?

Why do you *hate black men* who die young?

That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

That would leave only the Federal Government that congress pays the welfare and pays the bills for, doesn’t it?

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:25:43 +0000

On 2/2/2012 8:07 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 1/21/2012 7:54 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> So is interpreting statutes, which was going on for centuries
>>>>>> before the Constitution was ratified.
>>>>
>>>> If I tell you that Welfare is NOT 150 years old and was NOT going on
>>>> before the constitution and is also unconstitutional you’ll whine like a
>>>> little girl.
>>>
>>> No one cares what you tell me or anyone else.
>>>
>>> The constitution expressly refers to providing for the general
>>> Welfare.
>>
>> ["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;"]
>>
>> “General Welfare” of Who?
>>
>>
>> The sentence that applies the words general welfare has at the end these
>> words “of the United States”
>>
>> So “to pay the debts…. and General welfare of the United States”
>> tells whose debts and whose welfare, congress is being “directed” to pay?
>>
>> WHOSE BILLS IS CONGRESS BEING DIRECTED TO PAY?
>
> That is up to Congress, until and unless someone brings a case to the
> courts.

Then sending in all my bills to congress is OK since they are directed
to pay them and if they won’t pay then the BILL collectors can take the
congress to collections.

Until you prove that “Welfare” and “paying bills” are are NOT held to
the same qualifier at the end of the sentence “United States” it is
plain to see that the congress pays these for the same entities.

That means as long as they pay *welfare* for the States and the People,
that means congress is also accepting to *pay the bills* of the States
and the People.

I will be Hence forth forward all my bills to congress…..

I suggest that all the people also send their bills to congress until it
decides that “United States” does NOT include “States” and NOT include
“the People”.

That would leave only the Federal Government that congress pays the
welfare and pays the bills for, doesn’t it?

Which was the way it was written, but NOT how the US Supreme Court reads
it. Sad that we have a Supreme court full of Progressive Village
Idiots like Obama the Harvard Village Idiot.

You need to ignore these Progressives and treat them as the Village
idiots they truly are.

People would do well to treat Progressives as the mentally deficient village idiots that they are.

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:28:38 +0000

On 2/2/2012 7:24 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 1/21/2012 8:03 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 1/12/2012 8:07 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>
>>>> And it’s better for me when you run over my kid.
>>>
>>> I cannot see how anything could possibly be better for you were I to
>>> run over your kid, unless you have no appreciation for the young goat
>>> that you own.
>>>
>>> Not that I have any intention or interest in running over your kid.
>>>
>>>> My lawyer will know what is in the contra`cts and laws
>>>
>>> Good for you, since it is quite clear that you won’t know.
>>>
>>>> and you will be in the hot seat, NOT me.
>>>
>>> You apparently presume that I would not hire a lawyer as good as
>>> yours.
>>
>> You were the one defending all the laws and regulations
>
> Not hardly. There are stupid laws and regulations.
>
>> saying we don’t need lawyers to guide us
>
> That is NOT what I said. I said with regard to ONE particular law,
> that I did not need a lawyer to tell me that I needed to have auto
> insurance.
>
>> and I said without a lawyer you would make errors
>
> Even with lawyers, I might make errors. So what?
>
>> and end up in violation of laws or maybe making bad decisions on
>> following laws you have NOT read.
>
> Even with lawyers, I might make bad decisions.
>
> But somehow, in almost 60 years, I don’t seem to have seriously run
> afoul of the law.
>
>> You just confirmed that all these laws are detrimental to society
>
> I have confirmed no such thing.
>
>> because they have us making decisions without all the information
>
> We are always making decisions without all the information. That is
> the nature of life.
>
>> due to the complexity of the thousand page laws being constructed to hide
>> information and frustrate the average citizen.
>
> The thousand page laws are constructed to define every jot and iota so
> that people cannot evade the law by claiming that it doesn’t say X, Y,
> or Z. You don’t need to know most of that stuff, unless you are
> trying to evade the law.

That’s a lie…. the thousand page laws are written to hide the true
intent of the law, and that intent is to try to use the courts to steal
your RIGHTS that can’t be stolen so easily by elected officials in a
short concise amendment to the constitution without raising National
attention on themselves.

You scum of the EARTH Progressive-Socialist types have learned how to be
slimy but you still don’t get that you are the dumbest MFers on the
planet. You remind me of the Snake Oil Salesmen…..

People would do well to treat Progressives as the mentally deficient
village idiots that they are.

Nobody Understands Debt, particularly right-wing trolls..Liberalsthinkall money is free.

admin — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:25:24 +0000

> On 1/28/2012 3:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Yes and that was the result of congress, Obama, ACORN, and the
>>> government arm twisting, and then the bankers decided that Fannie&
>>> Freddie were buying all the loans because congress, Obama, ACORN&
>>> Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had corrupted the GSE Mortgage system.
>>>
>>> The banked were coerced into “making loans” under threat of racial
>>> discrimination law suits and so they passed as many of those to the
>>> taxpayer backed Fannie& Freddie because they knew that the
>>
>>
>> Yeah yeah we’ve all seen the lame Utube rants. This
>> is all big fairy tale.

Those Youtube rants are actually the Democrat-Progressive’s from their
own mouths telling what they were doing, so if you have a problem with
the video, the problem is with the Democrat Progressives like Obama and
Andrew Cuomo telling you their plans to extort their desired behavior
from the mortgage lenders.

The plan was a typical Progressive plan to redistribute.

>> the bankers did what they did
>> because they were making enormous profits.

made possible by Fannie and Freddie and the Progressives.

Paradox, if they don’t make the loans they are RACISTS and if they do make the loans you say the loans were committing fraud.

admin — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 02:00:51 +0000

On 1/28/2012 7:37 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> lsrlts wrote:
>>
>> On 1/28/2012 3:18 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and that was the result of congress, Obama, ACORN, and the
>>>> government arm twisting, and then the bankers decided that Fannie&
>>>> Freddie were buying all the loans because congress, Obama, ACORN&
>>>> Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had corrupted the GSE Mortgage system.
>>>>
>>>> The banked were coerced into “making loans” under threat of racial
>>>> discrimination law suits and so they passed as many of those to the
>>>> taxpayer backed Fannie& Freddie because they knew that the
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah yeah we’ve all seen the lame Utube rants. This
>>> is all big fairy tale. the bankers did what they did
>>> because they were making enormous profits.
>>
>> You’re in deep denial they were urged even cajoled into loosening loan
>> standards, you liar.
>
> In 2006 80% of the mortgages were fraudulently issued.
> The bankers were breaking the law

They would be in a paradox, if they don’t make the loans they are
RACISTS and if they do make the loans you say the loans were committing
fraud to make loans to minorities…..

> The regulators never encouraged the banks to break the law

The Government and Progressives wanted to stop redlining and all the
ramped racism, they got what they wanted with extortion. Of course when
it all went bad the government and Progressives all blame someone else,
go figure?

> The bankers did it for profit.

NO they did it for Progressives and their back door redistribution.

> And anyway mortgages was only 20% of the private debt

It was the center of the crash.

> how do you explain the other 80% that caused the meltdown?

They and you lied.

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

admin — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:48:38 +0000

> On 1/24/2012 12:22 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 12:07:35 -0500, Frank
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> “Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of
>>>> limited
>>>> government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of
>>>> individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly,
>>>> and free
>>>> markets.”
>>>>
>>>
>>> Defines my politics. Don’t expect the Libs to comprehend this and the
>>> rest of your post.
>>
>> Classical liberalis existed in the 18th and part of the 19th century
>>
>> Conservatism, however, endures as a resistance to any/alll change,
>> support of status Quo, and in America is rooted in Racism, Homophobia,
>> greed, and bigotry.
>>
>> Liberal/Progressives “changed” the way society deals with
>> problems—using government as a tool to lessen the harshness of a

Using government as a tool/gun to force people at gun point and
enhancing tyranny, yes I agree that is the history of Progressives and
the new Liberals.

>> evolving capitalist system (or did after the 30′s)
>>
>> Conservtives want to “go back” or “revert” to control where skin
>> color, gender, and station of life dictated their agenda.

NO, but then you have yet to get anything correct so why start now.

Making it legal but frustratingly impossible, then you can’t complain about a loss of freedom, but the hoops are not worth the gains. Like they are doing with Firearms.

admin — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:27:44 +0000

On 1/24/2012 12:32 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:55:06 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/24/2012 10:29 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 08:01:13 -0600, “Bob” wrote:
>>>
>>>> “jim” < "sjedgingN0Sp"@m @&*$?%mwt.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:QridnRfeuaXbZIDSnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d @&*$?%bright.net…
>>>>
>>>>> Prosperity is what the politicians who want a balanced budget
>>>>> are promising.
>>>>
>>>> In what time frame?
>>>>
>>>
>>> However long it takes to transfer a few TRillion to the pockets of
>>> those who already own 70% of all wealth
>>
>>
>> The best and fastest way to transfer the wealth from the have’s to the
>> have NOT’s, is to get rid of the regulations that prevent competition.
>
> Since 1980—there is NO evidence that any of that worked.

If you want to get something like Alcohol or Drugs to economically
explode and make new millionaires, just BAN IT….

That’s why Cigarettes were taxed and regulated, banning them would make
them more valuable, and create more interest. Taxing and regulating
them is actually creating less of a market. As it always does.

Taxes and Regulation are NOT sexy and they make for little interest in
an endeavor. That is what Liberal-Progressives have finally learned from
their mistaken attempts to ban things. They have learned that killing
something is best done by NOT killing it but regulating it until it is
so close to dead that you can call it success. Making it legal but
frustratingly impossible, then you can’t complain about a loss of
freedom, but the hoops are not worth the gains. Like they are doing
with Firearms.

Liberal-Socialists are NOW regulating and taxing all freedoms, one after
another, because they don’t want them to grow in popularity they want to
strip you of yours enough to end up with a virtual ban and banning your
freedom would create that natural human backlash.

Tell Bill gates and Steve Jobs…. The Tech/Internet Bubble was
mostly unregulated and often called the wild west where millionaires
popped up overnight “think Google” “FACE BOOK“.

Drugs are NOT taxed and are instead banned so drug dealers just ignore
all taxes and regulations.

Alcohol was/is strictly taxed and is regulated , which group has the
most change in the economic strata?

Didn’t John DeLorean deal drugs? Also didn’t poor people deal drugs
and isn’t there a higher turn over of millionaires in drug lords than in
Alcohol Kingdoms.

All be it when Alcohol regulations were cut in the late 1970′s, some new
micro breweries in America blossomed and that again proves my point.

So when you ban or deregulate you get more of it, but when you regulate
and tax something you get less of it

> So making silly, unsupportable claims like that is just nonsense.

Take your own advice.

If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER ….Obama would have already fixed everything

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:04:06 +0000

On 1/20/2012 10:24 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “First. Post” wrote in message
> news:2r3kh798em7la9fnlb8jcokfmq42trst7k @&*$?%4ax.com…
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:42:26 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/20/2012 3:39 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>> January 19, 2012
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Taxes at the Top
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main reason the rich pay so little is that most of their
>>>>>>>> income takes
>>>>>>>> the form of capital gains, which are taxed at a maximum rate of
>>>>>>>> 15 percent,
>>>>>>>> far below the maximum on wages and salaries. So the question is
>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> capital gains – three-quarters of which go to the top 1 percent
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>> income distribution – warrant such special treatment.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>> Why do capital gains warrant such special treatment?
>>>>>>> 1. The funds are invested for a long term, rather than for
>>>>>>> example, being
>>>>>>> used to flip real estate.
>>>>>>> 2. The funds are invested in a manner that the GOVERNMENT wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No mention was made of the taxes paid by the “rich” when spending
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> profits.
>>>>>
>>>>>> A sales tax is the same for the rich as for the poor for necessities,
>>>>>> and that’s not a rate but on a per head basis.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Land value taxation is much more progressive than a sales tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have $3million, why is that bad?
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes it isn’t
>>>>
>>>> That’s why we need to hike taxes on the rich. So everyone will be
>>>> closer to being worth 3 million.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Like farting in a hurricane…. Obama could have spent that deficit he
>>> created $5 trillion, by writing checks to the NON millionaires already.
>>>
>>> But he chose to give it all to the BIG CORPORATIONS.
>>
>> If you took the total of all of the stimulous bills that Obama is
>> responsible for and divided the money up among those in the workforce
>> (includes those working as well as those seeking employment) then a
>> married couple would have received roughly $40,000.
>> 150 million people each getting a $20,000 check would have stimulated
>> the economy a hell of a lot more than giving hundreds of billions each
>> to a select few banks and corporations and phoney “green” outfits like
>> Solyndra.

But then why did the government have that money in the first plsce, that
is the question. If all they did was take it abd then give it back that
is NOT the definition of taxing and “to pay the bills”.

>> The greatest stimulator of the economy is to put more money in the
>> pockets of the consumers.

Those are called jobs…. so the best thing is to encourage jobs.
Instead the government encourages *REGULATIONS AND TAXES* .

>> Progressives can piss about taxing the top,
>> the middle, hell anyone they want. But more taxation does not put a
>> single penny into the pockets of the consumers.

Exactly.

>> Higher taxes will not
>> generate demand for goods and services. Higher taxes will not promote
>> consumer spending.

TRUE.

>> You and I both know that higher taxes only promote more bureacracy and
>> government spending on c&*$?%p that does little if anything to boost the
>> economy.

*If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER* ….Obama would have already
fixed everything as he has increased the cost and size of government.
But 3 years of Obama’s *BIG GOVERNMENT* and *NOTHING is fixed*.

> It depends on tax policy. Tax the wealthy they wont spend a nickel less.
> Step up government spending infrastructure and education, for example.
> You create jobs and permanent public capital assets.

You create useless government jobs, basically welfare…. and that is a
drag on the Private economy.

> Those assets may be bridges, water works, and such, plus educated people
> who will earn more educated than they will uneducated…

All things the private sector can create when needed…. blindly
building for what your crystal ball says is the future is silly and
wasteful. Why didn’t the government create transistors and airplanes
when we needed them….

> Therefore, they will ultimately pay more in taxes from their increased
> earnings.

Thanks to Microsoft, more millionaires pay more taxes than ever before.
So we became more efficient with the Private sector building computer
infrastructure than with the government hiring people to write software
code for massive government projects.

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

admin — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 20:53:04 +0000

On 1/13/2012 3:21 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012 13:43:39 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 1/13/2012 9:14 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:51 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget
>>>> Office Director As Inappropriate
>>>
>>> Wow
>>>
>>> Republicans assailing Obama
>>>
>>> Whodda thunk it?
>>
>>
>> They are Republicans/ Blue Blood North EASTERN PROGRESSIVES……
>
> Republicans of ANY kind are lock-step, stiff arm saluting morons.
>
>> All the Progressives want that world Socialist government.
>
> There is no one advocating any such government ownership of industry
> and means of production and distribution
>
> Or–don’t you know what “Socialism” is?
>
>> Obama is a THUG and he was leaning on the head of the CBO,
>
> No such event ever occurred. (except in your wet-dreams)

You made the “blanket claim” so NOW you can prove it……

I say that Obama had the power to corrupt the process by meeting face to
face, whereas had he only sent a letter that would be “ARCHIVED” he
could NOT attempt to extort the CBO because it would have become
actionable in court with witnesses and evidence.

Time to use the RICO Act to break the organized crime within the
Executive branch of the Federal Government.

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

admin — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:43:39 +0000

On 1/13/2012 9:14 AM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:02:51 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> Republicans Assail President Obama Meeting with Congressional Budget
>> Office Director As Inappropriate
>
> Wow
>
> Republicans assailing Obama
>
> Whodda thunk it?

They are Republicans/ Blue Blood North EASTERN PROGRESSIVES……

We can’t expect much out of them.

All the Progressives want that world Socialist government.

Obama is a THUG and he was leaning on the head of the CBO, since the
meeting was like the MAFIA kingpins and in person where Obama could have
people whisper into the CBO heads ear….. it was equivalent to telling
this CBO head that his family was “very nice looking”.

That meeting was the turning point in the ObamaCare Legislation, Obama
got what he wanted after that meeting, at least from the CBO he got what
he wanted.

I can’t believe that the media allowed this to be quietly shelved…. I
guess this is what it’s like to have the MAFIA run the NATION, it
reminds me of a Star Trek episode where a planet had based its
government on a book left behind by a space explorer, the book was a
fiction 1930′s MOB/gangsters novel.

*OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENTIAL HIS BEHAVIOR IS CHICAGO THUG*

This type of behavior violates our sunshine laws.

“The US is driving the world to a nuclear war” < < < GO NWO!!!

admin — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:16:01 +0000

On 1/13/2012 2:52 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 1/11/2012 12:21 AM, MÃ¶ebius Pretzel wrote:
>>> Paul Craig Roberts: “The US is driving the world to a nuclear war”
>>>
>>>
>>
>> NOT true…. it is Obama “Progressives” that are driving the world.
>
> The rightard doesn’t even pretend to deal with facts anymore.
>
The truth is sufficient.

Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly incorrect

admin — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 02:55:31 +0000

On 1/12/2012 8:55 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jan 11, 4:46 pm, P&*$?%s wrote:
>> On 1/11/2012 1:06 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 11, 1:55 pm, P&*$?%s wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2012 9:34 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>> messagenews:4F0DC138.2040100 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>> On 1/11/2012 11:18 AM, Sid9 wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>>>>>> messagenews:4F0DB17E.8050207 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>>>>>> On 1/10/2012 8:19 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 1:13 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> “Werner” wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>>> news:19391644.657.1326221417335.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums @&*$?%vben14…
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:12:15 PM UTC-5, Nickname unavailable
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 10, 10:57 am, Werner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been
>>>>>>>>>>>>> controlled by Dems for most of the past 100 years.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> you have democrats and the word liberal mixed up. there are
>>>>>>>>>>>> plenty of
>>>>>>>>>>>> crank democrats. since 1981, both parties have been almost
>>>>>>>>>>>> identical.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ypu simply cannot lie away 1933-1981.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suggest people like Sid9 have Democrats and Republican mixed
>>>>>>>>>>> up. Why
>>>>>>>>>>> don’t you lecture Sid9?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m quite clear about the lassaiz faire Republican economics that
>>>>>>>>>> started
>>>>>>>>>> our country on the road to the instability we had.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> From the founding of the United States until 1935 America suffered a
>>>>>>>>>> financial crash or collapse on average every 18 years.
>>
>>>>>>>> Until Progressives interrupted the natural economic cycle like they say
>>>>>>>> humans interrupted the Global Warming cycle today?
>>
>>>>>>>> Yet they tell us it’s bad to interfere with the Natural WARMING cycle.
>>>>>>>> They tell us it’s good to interrupt the Natural economic cycles….
>>
>>>>>>>> This is typical logic of Progressives they’re willing to do what ever
>>>>>>>> they want and destroy what ever NATURAL process they want, Or lie and
>>>>>>>> fake science to tax and write laws as long as it promotes their failed
>>>>>>>> ideology and growing government.
>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> Boom and bust…crashes and financial panics are OK with you?
>>>>>>> The hardships they bring on most people is meaningless to you.
>>
>>>>>> It gets rid og the weak and creates new opportunities, the rich become
>>>>>> poor and the poor are given new opportunities.
>>
>>>>>>> We know how to keep economic swings under control yet Republicans got
>>>>>>> the whole game backwards.
>>
>>>>>> NO YOU DON’T KNOW HOW… you only think you do. You create a
>>>>>> situation worse than Global Warming.
>>
>>>>>>> Deregulation, started by Republican St Reagan has been a disaster.
>>
>>>>>> It has been a way to get rid of stupid laws and regulations that keep
>>>>>> the poor in their place…. regulations put in place by progressives
>>>>>> that got to the top and refuse to let go of the power.
>>
>>>>>>> Tax cuts for the wealthy, or as Republicans call them “job creators”
>>>>>>> have brought huge deficits, debt, and failed to produce any jobs.
>>
>>>>>> Taxing and spending by Progressives keeps the poor in their rut and
>>>>>> keeps them forever poor… they are already poo so a bad economy
>>>>>> doesn’t make the poor “poor” but the progressives plan to stop the
>>>>>> cycles will keep the rich “rich”
>>
>>>>>> They are North East USA Progressives, they did it by destroying States
>>>>>> Rights and using the Civil War as a phony excuse to kill States Rights
>>>>>> and amendment 10, ever since they have tried to get income tax with the
>>>>>> intent to use their new power to keep the poor where they are and
>>>>>> thereby keep the RICH in power.
>>
>>>>>> What was once an economy that recycled society and replaced rich with
>>>>>> poor, was changed by progressives to stagnate the ability of society to
>>>>>> move people through the layers of college Fraternity selected and monied
>>>>>> family top level North East Progressives.
>>
>>>>>>> It makes no sense to keep repeating the Republicans failed policies.
>>
>>>>>> Failure is what change/repairs society, smoothing out the economy
>>>>>> creates a hierarchy of rich that can’t be displaced and can NOT be
>>>>>> eventually replaced.
>>
>>>>>> The QUEEN makes sure the laws/regulations keep her FAMILY RICH and they
>>>>>> make sure the poor will continue to be poor. The progressives are all
>>>>>> for stopping progress when it comes to their family getting a bloody
>>>>>> nose and ending up poor.
>>
>>>>> “States Rights” divides America and makes us weak.
>>>>> “States Rights” is cover for racism that divides and weakens America.
>>
>>>>> “States Rights” is an RRR con job on fools like you who revel in failure.
>>
>>>>> Well, Republican delivered……FAILURE!.
>>
>>>> Perhaps, but no where near the scale of the Democratic delivered
>>>> economic failure triggered by CRA and similar socialist programs.
>>
>>> you can back you lies up correct?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to…
>>
>> 1/business/new-agency-proposed-to-ove…
>>
>>> if you can, you will be a rich man.
>>
>> Keep your filthy money. I earn my wages, thank you.
>>
>> <1500 pages of c&*$?%p snipped>
>
> chirp chirp chirp:)))))
>
>
>
> http://www.truth-out.org/deliberate-deception-us-blaming-fannie-and-freddie-crisis/1326316248
>
> Deliberate Deception in the US: Blaming Fannie and Freddie for Crisis
> Thursday 12 January 2012
> by: Paul Krugman, Krugman & Co. | Op-Ed

Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are $100 billion dollars behind the tax
payers 8 ball.

Nice try but they are at the center of the Mortgage crash, they helped
cause it they aren’t innocent “victims” that lie is a bridge too far.

“States Rights” divides America and makes us weak. >>> What a lie this is.>>>>You Progressives aren’t very Progressive are you?

admin — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:36:25 +0000

On 1/11/2012 7:18 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Mediocracy” wrote in
> message news:4F0DE8D0.7070302 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>> On 1/11/2012 1:50 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2012 12:34 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> “States Rights” divides America and makes us weak.
>>>
>>>
>>> You are ignoring your Progressive “MULTICULTURALISM” roots.
>>>
>>> Is it bad to allow the Blacks their culture or bad to create a
>>> monolithic MONOCULTURE that dis allows the Blacks heritage? Have you
>>> been lying to us about diversity or are you lying to us about it today?
>>>
>>> States having differing economic base and different cultural and
>>> different constitutional values…..
>>>
>>>
>>> Why is one States culture and heritage or one regions heritage any less
>>> important than the Blacks, if I want a little honey with my corn bread
>>> I don’t need a NATIONAL/FEDERAL law that dictates the amount of honey or
>>> sugar that can be used.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We need diversity and it helps us stay stronger….. Just as
>>> diversifying your investments in the Stock Market the bond markets and
>>> in Gold will help you to NOT lose everything you own. The States
>>> Rights helps the United States be a diversified “Entity” we are stronger
>>> with our varied thinking than we are when we all think the same.
>>
>>
>> If every State was like California and Illinois, the entire United
>> States Federation would collapse from the debt.
>>
>>
>> States Rights is required for our survival.
>>
>>
>> But then the Socialists don’t want us to survive, they want us to change
>> and become Socialist/Communist with centrally organized economy.
>>
>>
> .
> .
> What a total load of horseshit!
> “States Rights” cripples America and wastes our potential.
>
> “States Rights” are code words for racism.
>
> We are “…one nation united…”

United… by the Constitution and it has in it the TENTH AMENDMENT.

Do you see how dumb you are, or do I need to explain it?

>
> It’s in the pledge of allegiance which you obviously don’t take seriously

Only if you’re a Socialist s&*$?%t bag that tries to re-define terms to
your own liking do you take your charge of racism seriously.

States Rights allows for more Freedom, your Socialist central control
and monoculture creates less freedom. *Racism* is code for;
“I’m a Socialist s&*$?%t bag and I have no substance so I will repeat slogans”

It’s truly sad to find a person as dumb as you.

“States Rights” divides America and makes us weak. >>> What a lie this is.>>>>You Progressives aren’t very Progressive are you?

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:50:48 +0000

On 1/11/2012 12:34 PM, Sid9 wrote:

> “States Rights” divides America and makes us weak.

You are ignoring your Progressive “MULTICULTURALISM” roots.

Is it bad to allow the Blacks their culture or bad to create a
monolithic MONOCULTURE that dis allows the Blacks heritage? Have you
been lying to us about diversity or are you lying to us about it today?

States having differing economic base and different cultural and
different constitutional values…..

Why is one States culture and heritage or one regions heritage any less
important than the Blacks, if I want a little honey with my corn bread
I don’t need a NATIONAL/FEDERAL law that dictates the amount of honey or
sugar that can be used.

We need diversity and it helps us stay stronger….. Just as
diversifying your investments in the Stock Market the bond markets and
in Gold will help you to NOT lose everything you own. The States
Rights helps the United States be a diversified “Entity” we are stronger
with our varied thinking than we are when we all think the same.

You Progressives aren’t very Progressive are you?

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:20:38 +0000

On 1/11/2012 12:09 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “jane.playne” @&*$?%gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jekf49$bde$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>> On 1/11/2012 11:33, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in
>>> message news:4F0DB52C.3020501 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>>>> On 1/11/2012 8:06 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>>>> Cuba: 4.9% infant mortality rate in 2011: The United States, which has
>>>>> maintained its criminal economic blockade of the country for more than
>>>>> 50 years, records an infant mortality rate of 7.0
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/5ener-mortality.html
>>>>
>>>> Stop the propaganda, they count babies different, like you count a baby
>>>> in the uterus as NOTHING while I count it as a live human, and a
>>>> person.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CUBA is NOT a medical Paradise, that is a Socialist MYTH and proof is
>>>> that you don’t race off to CUBA to get better health care than you get
>>>> in the USA. NO millionaire Socialist Movie stars like Michael Moore
>>>> are down in Cuba waiting to be cured of disease or deliver their
>>>> babies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You’re so dumb it’s pitiful, and then you expose your stupidity so
>>>> effectively that it’s easy to see.
>>>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Dream on.
>>> Cuba trades with all the rest of the world.
>>> There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy from European
>>> countries.
>>> They also have a brisk income form European tourism.
>>>
>>> Our embargo of Cuba only hurts American manufacturers and exporters.
>>>
>>>
>>> “The relationship cultivated between Cuba and Venezuela in recent years
>>> has resulted in agreements in which Venezuela provides cheap oil in
>>> exchange for Cuban “missions” of doctors to bolster the Venezuelan
>>> health care system. Cuba, with the second-highest per capita number of
>>> physicians in the world (behind Italy), sends tens of thousands of
>>> doctors to other countries as aid, as well as to obtain favorable
>>> economic terms of trade.”
>>>
>>> from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Cuba
>>>
>>> The embargo is the most stupid artifact of the cold war still in effect.
>>
>> I agree with you completely regarding the absurdity of the US embargo.
>> HOWEVER, I am in complete disagreement with you on their economy; I
>> have been there.
>>
>>
>> “Under the scheme, according to the newspaper, more than 2.1m
>> pensioners will receive increases of about $2 (£1) a month, raising
>> minimum monthly pensions to $9.50 (£4.70).” -
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7370304.stm
>>
>>
>>
>> You said, “There’s no medicine or medical equipment they can’t buy
>> from European countries.” You don’t know the difference between the
>> words “can” and “may”. Cuba “may” buy equipment but they “can” not
>> buy it. The following is an excerpt from an article illustrating that
>> Canada is donating its obsolete medical equipment to Cuba.
>>
>> ” December 7th Manitouwadge General Hospital delivered a used but still
>> useful ultrasound machine to Medical Equipment Modernization
>> Opportunity (MEMO) for use in equipment poor Cuba. …In Canada it is
>> considered older technology but in a third world country it is
>> considered “State of the art”…“We are very pleased that this
>> obsolete equipment will find good use in Cuba.”… Cuba suffers from a
>> severe shortage of modern functioning medical equipment.” -
>> http://www.karinahunter.com/?p=21722
>>
>>
>> AND from the wikipedia article that YOU referenced, a doctor makes
>> $700 per month:
>> Typical wages range from factory worker’s 400 non-convertible Cuban
>> pesos a month to doctor’s 700. That is only around 17-30 U.S. dollars
>> a month. However, the Human Development Index of Cuba still ranks much
>> higher than the vast majority of Latin American nations.[40] After
>> Cuba lost subsidies in 1991, malnutrition resulted in an outbreak of
>> diseases and general hunger.[41] Despite this, the poverty level
>> reported by the government is one of the lowest in the developing
>> world, ranking 6th out of 108 countries, 4th in Latin America, and
>> 48th among all countries.[42] Pensions are among the smallest in the
>> Western hemisphere at $9.50. In 2009, Raul Castro increased minimum
>> pensions by 2 dollars, which he said was to recompense for those who
>> have “dedicated a great part of their lives to working… and who
>> remain firm in defense of socialism”.[43]
>
> I make no claim that the Cuban economic system is efficient.
> It isn’t.
> There are many poor nations in the Caribbean. Cuba is one of them.
>
> However, my objection is to our embargo.
> Politically driven, this embargo, an artifact of the cold war does not
> benefit the United States.
>
> I believe that the Castro brothers with their Communist system would
> have been long gone had our embargo ended years ago,
>
> Effectively America kept Communism alive in Cuba.

Your claims are ignorant and based on Leftist propaganda, you don’t
think or use your own brain to ask any questions, you just swallow that
garbage they feed you.

They count a baby as NOT born in many parts of the world, until it has
survived 24 hours. We deliver unusual and premature and count them as
live from the moment they are born.

The Progressives and Socialists like to manipulate numbers to suck you
into their lies.

You’re their target, they like to target the brain dead that just accept
their lies supported by manipulated numbers.

Socialism is an IDEOLOGY built on lies and the lies are supported by
fudged and manipulated numbers.

Global Warming to Economics to Social issues, they give you phony
numbers to support their premise that more regulations and less freedom
will make your life better, you swallow that s&*$?%t and then you say
“Please sir may I have some more”

“The US is driving the world to a nuclear war” < < < GO NWO!!!

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:06:29 +0000

On 1/11/2012 12:21 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> Paul Craig Roberts: “The US is driving the world to a nuclear war”
>
>

NOT true…. it is Obama “Progressives” that are driving the world.

You IDIOTS elected them. You got Progressive Socialists and now you
complain.

Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly correct

admin — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 15:57:50 +0000

On 1/10/2012 8:19 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Jan 10, 1:13 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>> “Werner” wrote in message
>>
>> news:19391644.657.1326221417335.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums @&*$?%vben14…
>>
>>> On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 1:12:15 PM UTC-5, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On Jan 10, 10:57 am, Werner wrote:
>>>>> In the US the House writes tax and spend laws. The House has been
>>>>> controlled by Dems for most of the past 100 years.
>>
>>>> you have democrats and the word liberal mixed up. there are plenty of
>>>> crank democrats. since 1981, both parties have been almost identical.
>>>> ypu simply cannot lie away 1933-1981.
>>
>>> I suggest people like Sid9 have Democrats and Republican mixed up. Why
>>> don’t you lecture Sid9?
>>
>> I’m quite clear about the lassaiz faire Republican economics that started
>> our country on the road to the instability we had.
>>
>> From the founding of the United States until 1935 America suffered a
>> financial crash or collapse on average every 18 years.

Until Progressives interrupted the natural economic cycle like they say
humans interrupted the Global Warming cycle today?

Yet they tell us it’s bad to interfere with the Natural WARMING cycle.
They tell us it’s good to interrupt the Natural economic cycles….

This is typical logic of Progressives they’re willing to do what ever
they want and destroy what ever NATURAL process they want, Or lie and
fake science to tax and write laws as long as it promotes their failed
ideology and growing government.

If BIGGER and more intrusive government were so much better then NORTH KOREA and even Prisons everywhere would be paradise.

admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:08:22 +0000

On 1/9/2012 1:28 PM, wy wrote:
> On Jan 9, 12:58 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hitler added “socialist” to his party’s name, specifically to confuse
>>>>>>>>>> people.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Works to this day.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Hitler renamed the Party because he wanted to attract nationalists and
>>>>>>>>> proletarians.
>>
>>>>>>>> Yep. Exactly what I said.
>>
>>>>>>>> Continue espousing Hitler’s policies, dude…
>>
>>>>>>> You know the Tea Party does seem to have many things in common with
>>>>>>> Hitler
>>
>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
>>
>>>>>>> Fascism ( /’fæ??z?m/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist
>>>>>>> political ideology.[1][2] It advocates the creation of a totalitarian
>>>>>>> single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation
>>>>>>> through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and family
>>>>>>> policy (such as eugenics).[3][4] This state is led by a supreme leader
>>>>>>> who exercises a dictatorship over the fascist movement, the government
>>>>>>> and other state institutions.[5] Fascist governments forbid and
>>>>>>> suppress opposition.[6] Fascists seek to rejuvenate their nation based
>>>>>>> on commitment to the national community as an organic entity, in which
>>>>>>> individuals are bound together in national identity by suprapersonal
>>>>>>> connections of ancestry, culture, and blood.[7] To achieve this,
>>>>>>> fascists purge forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the
>>>>>>> cause of decadence and degeneration.
>>
>>>>>>> They have just changed a few words. )))))
>>
>>>>>> Oboobuh has his Purple Shirts and Hitler had his Brown Shirts. Obama
>>>>>> wants a civilian army, Hitler had his Hitlerjugend.
>>
>>>>>> Obama uses the 99% to demonizes the rich, demanding social justice.
>>
>>>>> The 99% which is almost all of America and of which you belong to.
>>
>>>>>> Hitler demonized the Jews and used his Brown Shirts to cause trouble.
>>
>>>>>> There is no relative moral equivalence between Conservitive
>>>>>> Republicans and Socialist Progressives.
>>
>>>>> One wants to help working people, the other wants the wealthy to get
>>>>> wealthier…
>>
>>>> What BS.
>>
>>> And yet, that’s what the con-servatives are doing – don’t tax those poor
>>> poor millionaires!
>>
>> You cut the military budget, why would you also tax the rich more?
>
> To pay off the debt quicker? Boy, you’re stoopid.

Then cutting Government Bureaucracy will also cut the debt quicker,
closing the department of education will help pay off the debt. But you
choke on cutting Government like you want to cut the Military.

If you downsize the Military by 25% then do that same thing to the
Bureaucrats in the Federal government, cut the rest of the Federal
government by 25%.

If BIGGER and more intrusive government were so much better then NORTH
KOREA and even Prisons everywhere would be paradise.

>> You were just crowing about car sales being up…. who bought those
>> cars, was it the poor?
>
> It wasn’t only millionaires – they already have all the cars they need
> and more.

Then GM has NO market there and they need to fire union workers.

>> You believe in selling cars but you want to take away the money people
>> used to buy cars?
>
> Are you supposed to be making some sort of sense there?

If you tax the rich more and take their money they can’t buy a car with
money they don’t have…. it’s really simple but then you’re really stupid.

>> You believe in Austerity when it comes to the Military but when it comes
>> to the government bureaucracy, you fight any cuts and are against
>> austerity?
>
> Government bureaucracy needs to grow with the population to serve that
> population effectively, otherwise increased delays and inefficiencies
> will result. You’re not going to be timely and efficient serving a
> population that has increased by 45 million, or by about 15%, in the
> last 15 years if you reduce the bureaucracy at the same time by 15%.
> Boy, you’re stoopid.

The government is there to take care of everyone?

I think I see where you are going wrong. It takes multiple people to
take care of someone. That means the government will need to be many
times larger than the Private sector that it takes care of.

>> You should NOW be trying to cut the bureaucracy, you have cut the
>> military now cut the rest of government. But no that’s not what you
>> want because you aren’t consistent and NOT trying to help America you
>> want to do whet helps the Socialists and cut the Military Government
>> that is generally Republican supporters and expand welfare Government
>> that generally supports the Socialists.
>
> I think America should cut idiots out of its population. By removing
> about 90 million of them, the government can then cut back on its
> bureaucracy big time.

You Socialists always find a section of the population to cut out and
kill, there’s always someone that’s standing between you and your UTOPIA
that you can blame for all societies problems.

90 million to kill is ambitious, Hitler and Stalin and Mao killed people
day and night and couldn’t reach the numbers you seek to achieve.

Do you Socialists have any solution that doesn’t include killing
millions of human lives?

Do you Socialists have any solution that doesn’t include killing human life?

admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 20:05:12 +0000

If you downsize the Military by 25% then do that same thing to the
Bureaucrats in the Federal government, cut the rest of the Federal
government by 25%.

>> You were just crowing about car sales being up…. who bought those
>> cars, was it the poor?
>
> It wasn’t only millionaires – they already have all the cars they need
> and more.

Then GM has NO market there and they need to fire union workers.

>> You believe in selling cars but you want to take away the money people
>> used to buy cars?
>
> Are you supposed to be making some sort of sense there?

If you tax the rich more and take their money they can’t buy a car with
money they don’t have…. it’s really simple but then you’re really stupid.

The government is there to take care of everyone?

I think I see where you are going wrong. It takes multiple people to
take care of someone. That means the government will need to be many
times larger than the Private sector that it takes care of.

>> You should NOW be trying to cut the bureaucracy, you have cut the
>> military now cut the rest of government. But no that’s not what you
>> want because you aren’t consistent and NOT trying to help America you
>> want to do whet helps the Socialists and cut the Military Government
>> that is generally Republican supporters and expand welfare Government
>> that generally supports the Socialists.
>
> I think America should cut idiots out of its population. By removing
> about 90 million of them, the government can then cut back on its
> bureaucracy big time.

You Socialists always find a section of the population to cut out and
kill, there’s always someone that’s standing between you and your UTOPIA
that you can blame for all societies problems.

90 million to kill is ambitious, Hitler and Stalin and Mao killed people
day and night and couldn’t reach the numbers you seek to achieve.

Do you Socialists have any solution that doesn’t include killing
millions of human lives?

jet polluters turn republican ?

admin — Sat, 07 Jan 2012 01:34:29 +0000

>>> On Jan 6, 12:52 pm, Eunometic wrote:
>>>
>>>> Military spending cuts are an inevitable consequence of running your
>>>> economy stupidly. Filling your country with lower IQ aliens to feed
>>>> elites with cheap labour and provide market growth for uncompetitive
>>>> US businesses doesn’t help either. It doeesn’t help that your
>>>> ‘minorities’ need a s&*$?%t heap of subsidies, racial benefit quotas.
>>>
>>>> You’d be a retard not to notice that the Republicans and Democrats are
>>>> essentially the same thing.

Those in charge at the top of the Republicans and Democrats are the
same, that similarity is their Progressive tendencies.

What we have is Progressives embedded in both political parties.

Texas Motorist Protection Act

admin — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 18:36:57 +0000

On 1/2/2012 1:25 PM, Sanders Kaufman wrote:
> “Wayne” wrote in message
> news:jdssic$5p6$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>
>> Thus, I can carry concealed (with a permit) on federal lands such as
>> national parks, but not in buildings such as ranger stations. Lately,
>> nearly all park buildings carry a “no weapons” sign.
>
> With all the gun-nuts talking about how they want to see federal
> officials murdered, and with so many actually trying, that’s the right
> thing for them to do.
> After all, some sociopath gun-nut just murdered a park ranger a couple
> of days ago on Mt. Ranier.
>

That would mean the government needs to re-evaluate their policies
towards “We The People” or at least that’s what Liberal-Progressives
believes about the Muslim Terrorists. You need to understand the gun
nuts. They have been discriminated against and bigoted people have
bullied and picked on them and they have been oppressed and their RIGHTS
have been violated over and over by Democrats.

All the government has to do is listen to the “gun nuts” and capitulate
to their demands and quit trying to MICRO MANAGE their lives.

Isn’t that the Obama/Hillary policy for Muslim appeasement?

The Ron Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia

admin — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 17:50:51 +0000

On 12/31/2011 6:09 PM, K&*$?%m wrote:
> On Dec 31, 12:43 pm, MÃ¶ebius Pretzel
> wrote:
>> UNABRIDGED: The Ron Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia
>>
>> This blog doesn’t limit itself to 30 year old newsletters that nobody
>> saw him write.
>>
>> Here you get to watch him say what he believes about race and
>> discrimination.
>>
>> You get to read what he believes directly from quotes in his books and
>> you get to see his actual words and votes from the congressional record.
>>
>> Here you’ll get to know the Ron Paul that his supporters know and that
>> even former aides know.
>>
>> Even one former aide that still disagrees with him on foreign policy
>> says with conviction on television that during all the time he knew Ron
>> Paul he knew he wasn’t ‘t a racist or a bigot.
>>
>> His supporters admire him for the many things and for consistently
>> speaking out against injustice.
>>
>> Among them,
>>
>> He speaks out against racial and ethnic discrimination during debates.
>>
>> He speaks out against racial and ethnic discrimination during
>> interviews.
>>
>> He speaks out against racial and ethnic discrimination in the
>> congressional record.
>>
>> He votes for legislation honoring and advancing African Americans
>> and their interests.
>>
>> He writes against racial and ethnic discrimination in his books all
>> the way back to 1987.
>>
>> After you finish reading this you’ll see that this is the Ron Paul the
>> media isn’t reporting about.
>>
>> You’ll see some things here that haven been seen before because no one
>> it seems bothered to dig them up. We submit that Ron Paul not only isn’t
>> a racist but that he can’t be a racist due to his core Libertarian
>> values and beliefs and his personal faith.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> ———————————————————————–
>>
>> READ & WATCH MORE!
>>
>> http://ronpaulracistimpossible.blogspot.com/2011/12/unabridged-even-m…
>
> Ron The Racist Paul knowingly, deliberately published news letters
> (plural) using his name in each title. This went on for years. Now
> his gutless followers can’t explain Ron The ‘Racists racism. It’s
> simple, racist don’t tell the truth. Ron The Racist doesn’t tell the
> truth. His supporters don’t tell the truth.
>
> Notice the above poster used to demand truth, not anymore.

You Democrat-progressives elected THE KKK Grand Kleagle from West
Virginia…..

But suddenly NOW you say that NO racist is capable of being innocent or
of change.

It’s funny to hear you Liberal Progressives say that and then defend
Robert Byrd and the New Black Panthers. It points out the duplicitous
nature of Liberalism. You’re calling everyone racists, except the real
racists, the real racists are Liberals who use racism as a club to beat
up anyone they see as a threat to their policies.

You’re like a NERD claiming to be a cool kid…. it just isn’t a believable lie.

admin — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 22:23:51 +0000

On 12/31/2011 2:34 PM, Old Pif wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2:18 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Would you rather spend your last 3 days in the desert “free” or spend
>> those 3 days in Auschwitz NOT free?
>>
>
> I am not free to make such a choice.
>
>> There are extremes in any discussion and unless they make a point they
>> are obtuse and mostly irrelevant.
>>
>> You seek to muddy the lines so that you can redefine what freedom is.
>> That is a typical Liberal-Progressive approach to reality. You try to
>> take it to theoretical and mythical and ridiculous ends and then return
>> to reality with “your” new definition.
>>
>
> Absolutely not. And I have no idea what Liberal-Progressive is.
> Another vague label, I suppose. My approach to reality is to find out
> internal connections and the reasons. Not to stick labels which is
> entirely fruitless exercise.

And what you do is re-arrange labels… what I call something is NOT
really important as long as I recognize it and the best way to do that
is to be consistent…. Not let the bar keep moving. So using the
same label for the same behavior “is” consistent and helps to easily and
quickly keep it straight. I say you are a LEFTIST BIG GOVERNMENT
TYPE…. I can tell that you’re Liberal and progressive or even
Socialist and progressive.

Liberal-Progressives and progressive-Socialists like to let that bar
slip slide all over.

They don’t want to be labeled because that ties them to their failures
and their failed and unwanted ideology. If you morph like a chameleon
and you can lie, then you can trick people into following your unpopular
and unworkable utopian cultist ideology/personality.

That’s why you refuse to take a stand for your ideology, it would tie
you to your ideology of failure. You will always betray your claim of
NO ideology/LABEL and your claim of NOT being a Liberal-Progressive.
It doesn’t matter because you’ll consistently choose Liberal-Socialist
solutions to any problem, it isn’t the label you run from it’s your own
personality and compulsion.

You’re like a NERD claiming to be a cool kid…. it just isn’t a
believable lie.

Who voted to allow Obamacare to come up to a vote

admin — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:33:22 +0000

On 12/30/2011 12:13 PM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> Just in case you wondered why the corporate media is pushing Mitt Romney
> so hard…
>
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150654687098574&set=a.10150622327538574.491087.828988573&type=1
>

Mitt Romney uses the Progressive buzz word “fair”, he is like Scott
Brown, a Progressive North east republican that there isn’t 2 cents
worth of difference between them and Obama.

Who voted to allow Obamacare to come up to a vote on the floor and get
congress started down that road, it was one of those NASTY Progressive
Republicans from the North East…… Olympia Snowe wasn’t it, and her
useless Progressive cohort Susan Collins is there doing the same kind of
stupid things.

Scott Brown
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Mitt Romney
John McCain

All of them are typical Progressives hiding in the Republican party and
they are what gives you and gave you ObamaCare and RomneyCare and
government living outside the Constitution.

Ranks #1 Most Charitable Nation In The World – Contrary to what Progressives would like you to believe

admin — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:59:58 +0000

On 12/27/2011 9:47 AM, wy wrote:
> On Dec 27, 9:42 am, Steve wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 05:37:57 -0800 (PST), wy wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 7:47 am, Steve wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:53:43 -0800 (PST), wy wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 27, 6:30 am, Steve wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:23:38 -0800 (PST), wy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 26, 8:16 pm, Vandar wrote:
>>>>>>>> wy wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 26, 5:53 pm, Vandar wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 26, 10:35 am, Vandar wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 26, 8:30 am, “C…@PrayForMe.com” wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> USA: Ranks #1 Most Charitable Nation In The World
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By Mark Perry on December 26, 2011http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/12/26/usa-ranks-1-most-chari…
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charities Aid Foundation (a UK international charity): “This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second edition of the ‘World Giving Index’, the largest study into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> charitable behavior across the globe involving 153 countries in total.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using data from Gallup’s Worldview World Poll, the report is based on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> three measures of giving behavior – giving money, volunteering time
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and helping a stranger.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The results show that the USA is officially the most charitable nation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the world, moving from fifth place last year to first place this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> year. Ireland is the second most charitable country and Australia the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> third. Overall the World Giving Index, demonstrates that the world has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> become a more charitable place over the last 12 months – with a 2%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase in the global population ‘helping a stranger’ and a 1%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increase in people volunteering.”
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not so fast, Billy Bob. If you had actually looked at the real report
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you didn’t, you’d see the US doesn’t do that great at all. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Giving Index reflects all forms of giving, like volunteering and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> helping strangers, not just spending money. If you restrict it simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spending money, then the US is shamefully greedy, not proudly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> giving. In terms of cash, only 65% of Americans supposedly give their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> money away. In Thailand, of all places, it’s 85% of the population,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> placing it firmly at No. 1 and the US at No. 11. The reason why the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> US comes in at No. 1 overall is because of higher rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteering and helping strangers because Americans are too stingy
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with parting with their cash and that it’s cheaper for them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> volunteer and help strangers.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And what’s Canada‘s excuse?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charity consists of more than just cutting a check.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We’ve got a broader range of social programs than the US to help out
>>>>>>>>>>> the needy, paid for by taxpayers.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Taxpayer funded social programs aren’t charity.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Sure it is. You don’t understand the concept of socialism.
>>
>>>>>>>> You don’t understand the concept of charity. Which isn’t a surprise.
>>
>>>>>>> Again proving you don’t understand the concept of socialism.
>>
>>>>>> Socialism is easy to understand… it’s all about the government
>>>>>> forcing successful people to foot the bills of you losers.
>>
>>>>> Yeah, that’s why 9 of the top 10 happiest countries are socialist
>>>>> countries. The US – the greatest country in the world! – is
>>>>> shamefully in 10th place.
>>
>>>> Socialist countries have the highest percentage of losers.. Socialists
>>>> are losers…. Look at you, for instance… you’re claiming to be
>>>> happy driving your 13 year old, bumper dragging heap… Too bad that
>>>> your goals are so low,
>>
>>> Well, at least my claim is more realistic than yours. Yours doesn’t
>>> even cut it as a convincing fantasy.
>>
>> Your claim describes a loser’s life…
>>
>>>>> http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mef45ejmi/02-denmark/
>>
>>>>> You just don’t know how miserable you really are. I guess one can
>>>>> only see it by being outside of the US.
>>
>>>> Here’s hoping you stay out, too.. The US already has enough losers
>>>> like you.
>>
>>> Yeah, and it amounts to more than the total population of Canada these
>>> days.
>>
>> You losers are everywhere… but on the other hand, I see successful
>> Americans like me every day, driving our late model cars and trucks
>> from our nice homes in the burbs to offices downtown… course I’m
>> not going to work.
>
> Oh no, there go the drugs again. They’re more potent this time,
> aren’t they?
>
>
>> I’m retired…..
>
> Meaning you’re old and fat and losing your hair and teeth.

And this means “you” are profiling and exposing your HATE.

Do you understand how those old people managed to get old?

Have you decided to die before you get old? Since you hate it/them so
much it would be wise to make sure you don’t suffer the shame of being
fat or a wrinkle on your face or a story of how you succeed or failed by
working hard.

You need to make sure that you have a plan get out of the hell you
described as old age and make sure you don’t fail. Make us all happy
and die young!

Obama’s hero Hugo Chavez Bitch Slaps Obama’s Baboon ears off his Fugly face

admin — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:20:12 +0000

On 12/27/2011 2:43 AM, Buck wrote:
> On Dec 20, 9:31 pm, Ã˜BAMAGGOT Ã˜CCUTARDS < Øbama's S&*$?%t Stain on
> Americans @ White House.gov> wrote:
>> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70694.html
>>
>> Hugo Chávez blasted President Barack Obama as a “clown” and an
>> “embarrassment” who has turned the United States into a “disaster”
>>
>> Read more:http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70694.html#ixzz1h8HAtHrM
>
> I understand that Chavez didn’t like Obama, so why are you saying that
> they are buddies?
>
> I mean, that’s like saying that just because Canada allows Cubans and
> Canadians are free to go to Cuba, that Conservatives love Communism
> because Canada has a Conservative government!
>
> I guess that you’re putting words in my mouth!
>
> You f&*$?%g Commies are all alike!

A Republican Canadian is a Progressive-Republican like John McCain or
even a Progressive-Marxist like Obama.

Why would those Progressives show “character” and principal, they have none?

‘It Doesn’t Get Much Better than This’

admin — Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:26:44 +0000

On 12/26/2011 12:24 PM, Dano wrote:
> “BeamMeUpScotty” wrote in message
> news:4EF8A6C5.3010006 @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com…
>
> On 12/25/2011 7:09 PM, Dennis M wrote:
>> In article
>> @&*$?%24g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> wolfagain wrote:
>>
>>> Small town U.S.A. Sebring Fl http://www.youtube.com?v=RoeZ501lJU
>>>
>>> They have a sign at the city limits that says…”No Yankees nor Loon
>>> type Coffee House ‘Professors’ need travail further!” My kind of
>>> town…Small Town U.S.A.!
>>
>> What a bunch of dumbasses, turning away a lot of potential business in
>> today’s economy.
>
>
> So capitalists with ethics and standards is dumb, while Socialists
> professors that will advocate Liberals in congress circumvent all the
> laws and common sense to loan money to people that can never pay it back
> is “smart”?
>
>
> This is like the “Tortoise and the Hare” do you stay with Capitalism
> and the sound ethics or try yo sprint past and take a shortcut with
> Socialism and ignore the rules of the road?
>
> ============================================
>
> There is a marked difference between “having standards” and
> discriminating on the basis of political or religious differences.

And Liberal-Progressives fail to recognize any of it.

> Your
> making false claims about folks that disagree with you does NOT make
> such claims true.

Nothing is false…. that makes your statement is superfluous.

> You are lying. That makes you a liar…not an ethical
> person at all.

coming from a liar like you, that means nothing.

> I expect YOUR idea of what YOU call a “socialist” has as much bearing on
> reality as any wisdom found on the Hannity show.

I don’t know about Hannity, but I see past all your “I’m NOT a
Socialist” games.

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

admin — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:08:54 +0000

On 12/22/2011 5:42 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:17:01 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> Doesn’t have to be.

Do you see what you just said?

> There is no wording in the Constitution that requires “literal”
> construction or interpretaton.

["Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States *by the Constitution* ,
*nor prohibited by it* to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."]

Obviously is says that the powers have to be delegated *by*
*THE CONSTITUTION*

That means it is *NOT* by the courts interpretation of the constitution.
Because there is no power in the constitution that allows for
“interpretations” being converted to powers other than doing it with an
amendment.

Back to the FACT that if you want to change the constitution you need an
Amendment to the constitution and it was set up that way on purpose.

> It is a Theoretical CHOICE to demand that only an “original intent” is
> legitimate—and a fairly recent one that came about after the 50′s
> shot down most southern racist conservatives “states rights” c&*$?%p that
> the Civil war had settled (by force of arms)

It is NOT a choice given to you in the constitution so it is NOT a
choice. What it is, is unconstitutional behavior that deserves to be
prosecuted. The fact that you choose to ignore the constitution is NOT
a legal or real choice any more than my decision to ignore the Income
tax and tell the IRS to GO F&*$?%K THEMSELVES.

You see if you can ignore the constitution then so can I and we end up
without any government control because they just don’t have that many
jail cells. Prohibition taught you Progressives nothing? It’s almost
funny that you’re just as stupid as you were in the days of Prohibition.
Crime went up and drinking went up and underground economy went up….
what didn’t go up was the respect for the law and respect for paying
tax and the government run economy.

> It’s reared it’s ugly head by the origination of “the federalist
> society” by nutjob winger David McIntosh.

The civil war created the problems of States Rights being violated by
the Federal Government time and again without enough opposition from the
States.

> There is NO doctrine that requires “literal” or “original” reading of
> the constitution.

Well, there is the constitution that tells you that the constitution is
where all the powers are delegated to the government. That deprives
you and all your Liberal insanity from delegating powers without an
Amendment to the constitution. No matter what any court or politician
or wise old sage tells you, they have no power delegated in the
constitution to give any power to government without passing an
amendment to the constitution. That’s what makes us all equal. You
have to get the amendment passed the same as me. NO court can order
that a power be created because I file a court case to get it. The
courts can *NOT* rewrite the constitution.

If that were NOT true, there would be NO reason for having the power to
amend the constitution at all. You would simply “interpret” away
anything you didn’t like and “interpret” new things into the
constitution as needed. No use for Amendments…..

But we all know the reality is that you must amend the constitution.

You are just trying to ignore reality. Typical Liberalism, you seek
your utopian life by disregarding reality.

You follow an imaginary path to your imaginary utopia. It’s like you’re
living in the WORLD OF ROGER RABBIT.

ACLU On Obama’s Plan To Detain American Citizens INDEFINITELY With No Trial

admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:55:03 +0000

On 12/15/2011 1:53 AM, JLS wrote:
> On Dec 15, 12:48 am, MÃ¶ebius Pretzel
> wrote:
>> ACLU On Obama’s Plan To Detain American Citizens INDEFINITELY With No Trial
>>
>>
>
> He doesn’t veto this goddamn bill, I’ll not support him next time. I
> did before but I won’t this time and won’t send in any more money.
> I’m like Bill Maher. I’m fed up with his slouching over to the
> rightards and police statists.
>
> Enough is enough!
>
> He was a constitutional law professor, for chrissakes! WTF happened
> to the sixth amendment?

Obama ignores the constitution just like all the Progressives in
congress do. They call it a living document and then they try
suffocating it while it’s on life support.

Obama is the *HARVARD VILLAGE IDIOT* .

New Gingrich book on climate change likely coming after the election (Al Gore is jealous)

admin — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:07:46 +0000

> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 03:46:39 GMT, @&*$?%mantra.com">usenet @&*$?%mantra.com and/or
> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>> New Gingrich book on climate change likely coming after the election

These Progressives will beat a dead horse won’t they…..

Gingrich Baggage It will cost him the primary.

admin — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:08:34 +0000

> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:44:13 -0800, MattB
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:38:55 -0800, “6338 Dead, 1481 since 1/20/09″
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 06 Dec 2011 16:18:28 -0700, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 09:08:05 -0800 (PST), Richard Steel
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> It will cost him the election.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? You guys are going the Panty sniffer route?
>>>>
>>>> You seem to feel that doing so in the 90′s was good
>>>>
>>>> Why the change?
>>>
>>> I don’t recall that it was Newt’s pantie raids that led to his
>>> $300,000 fine for ethics violations.
>>
>>
>> Ethics violation, Liking Child Labor and being a adulterer.
>> Gingrich is perfect for the Tea party patriots.

Funny because Newt is a chimera, his problem isn’t a little thing like a
a philanderer….. Newt is a duplicitous chimera that is Progressive
and he likes what the other Progressives say, regardless of what PARTY
people are in, Newt will agree with them when their views are Progressive.

Newt is a closet Progressive, every time an issue pops up, Newts first
proclivity is to take the progressives side. Often he is forced by the
poll numbers to switch to the Republican view.

I have been watching and I take all the first choices of these
politicians and I see and predict that they will time and again make
their first choice along the same ideological lines. Be they Religious
or NOT they can still be Progressives.

Some support the constitution and some support Progressive
ideas/solutions and some are just plain Socialist and their ideas tend
to undermine the constitution.

John McCain is a Progressive….
Mitt Romney is a Progressive…

Their first thought/reaction to a problem is always what Progressives
everywhere want to do. We are going to have a choice of President that
is Republican-Progressive or Socialist-Progressive so we will have a
Progressive again and there will be NO HOPE or CHANGE for another 4 years.

Progressives gave us the Federal Reserve, the IRS and Income Tax, and
they helped give us Prohibition.

Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves so media wouldn’t report on being thieves each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?

admin — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:15:59 +0000

On 12/3/2011 10:15 AM, NoBody wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 04:45:27 -0800 (PST), Matt
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 2, 4:07 am, NoBody wrote:
>>> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:10:57 -0800 (PST), Matt
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Nov 30, 4:14 am, NoBody wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:50:59 +0000 (UTC), “6322 Dead, 1465 since
>>>
>>>>> 1/20/09″ wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:47:46 -0500, C…@PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:27:56 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/27/2011 11:59 PM, 6322 Dead, 1465 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:46:47 -0500, C…@PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:12:03 -0500, ogro…@webtv.net (Padraigh
>>>>>>>>>> ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Congress exempts itself from most of the laws it passes.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Including the ban on insider trading.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How do you think Botox Queen Pelosi got so rich? Hard work?
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah…right.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The hag throws government contrats to her husband and son while
>>>>>>>>>> crowing her House was the most ethical in yee’yuz.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, tell us about how ethical House Republicans are. Make us laugh.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Pelosi was stealing from average middle class Americans retirement
>>>>>>>> accounts with her insider trading.
>>>
>>>>>>>> Then when she raises taxes on those same people, they are being hit by
>>>>>>>> government/Democrat theft twice……
>>>
>>>>>>>> This reminds me of the movie “OFFICE SPACE” where the programmers decide
>>>>>>>> to steal the remainder when a transaction had a left over fraction, they
>>>>>>>> deposited in their account and with billions in transactions they would
>>>>>>>> make a few dollars. This Congress has decided to steal a few dollars
>>>>>>> >from the millions of investors. Just skim a few dollars from a few
>>>>>>>> transactions that they have inside information on who will win.
>>>
>>>>>>> Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves without so much
>>>>>>> as a vote, avoiding going on record. By avoiding an open vote that would
>>>>>>> attract media attention, Congress now gets automatic pay raises each
>>>>>>> year while John Fing Kerry and the hag demand our taxes increase.
>>>
>>>>>>> Remember the rich pass what taxes they pay onto their customers in
>>>>>>> higher wholesales/retail prices.
>>>
>>>>>>> Congress voted automatic pay increases so media wouldn’t report on their
>>>>>>> thievery each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?
>>>
>>>>>>> Progressives are Evil
>>>
>>>>>> Wasn’t it a REPUBLICAN Congress that foisted that automatic pay increase
>>>>>> c&*$?%p on us?
>>>
>>>>>> Why, I do believe it WAS!
>>>
>>>>> And you’d be wrong AGAIN.
>>>
>>>>> http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/agencies/a/raise4congress.htm
>>>
>>>>> “In 1989, Congress passed an amendment allowing for the automatic
>>>>> raises, unless lawmakers specifically voted to reject it. Which
>>>>> Congress did, until 2000.”
>>>
>>>> Hm.
>>>
>>>> “In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jim Matheson‘s (D-Utah, 2nd)
>>>> motion to bring the pay raise to a separate vote was rejected 240-173.
>>>> ”
>>>
>>>> Interesting. A Democrat didn’t like the idea. The Republicans seem to
>>>> have overridden him.
>>>
>>> Read it again. That vote came after the law was passed. The Dems
>>> controlled Congress when the law was passed and thus are responsible
>>> for the automatic increases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> And
>>>
>>>>> http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydi…
>>>
>>>>> 101st Congress (1989-1991)
>>>
>>>>> Majority Party: Democrat (55 seats)
>>>
>>>>> Minority Party: Republican (45 seats)
>>>
>>>> Well, that’s good to know. Especially considering spending bills come
>>>> from
>>>> the House.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/101st_United_States_Congress
>>>
>>> Dems held both houses during that period — and not because I said
>>> so…
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you SURE you passed civics?
>>>
>>> Are you sure since that law had to pass both houses to become law?
>>
>> So, you are claiming that the Senate had something to do with passing
>> a spending law.
>
> So you are claiming that the House need only to pass a spending bill
> for it to become law?
>
>
>
>> Yes, I understand, you haven’t a clue how Congress works.
>
> I think you may need a refresher before you comment further:
>
> http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/legislative-executive-checks-balances
>>
["No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the
Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from
time to time."]

["All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of
Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as
on other Bills."]

Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves so media wouldn’t report on being thieves each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?

admin — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:03:24 +0000

On 11/29/2011 11:50 AM, 6322 Dead, 1465 since 1/20/09 wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 08:47:46 -0500, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:27:56 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/27/2011 11:59 PM, 6322 Dead, 1465 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 23:46:47 -0500, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:12:03 -0500, @&*$?%webtv.net">ogrowup @&*$?%webtv.net (Padraigh
>>>>> ProAmerica) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Congress exempts itself from most of the laws it passes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Including the ban on insider trading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you think Botox Queen Pelosi got so rich? Hard work?
>>>>>> Yeah…right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hag throws government contrats to her husband and son while
>>>>> crowing her House was the most ethical in yee’yuz.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, tell us about how ethical House Republicans are. Make us laugh.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Pelosi was stealing from average middle class Americans retirement
>>> accounts with her insider trading.
>>>
>>> Then when she raises taxes on those same people, they are being hit by
>>> government/Democrat theft twice……
>>>
>>> This reminds me of the movie “OFFICE SPACE” where the programmers decide
>>> to steal the remainder when a transaction had a left over fraction, they
>>> deposited in their account and with billions in transactions they would
>>> make a few dollars. This Congress has decided to steal a few dollars
>> >from the millions of investors. Just skim a few dollars from a few
>>> transactions that they have inside information on who will win.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves without so much
>> as a vote, avoiding going on record. By avoiding an open vote that would
>> attract media attention, Congress now gets automatic pay raises each
>> year while John Fing Kerry and the hag demand our taxes increase.
>>
>> Remember the rich pass what taxes they pay onto their customers in
>> higher wholesales/retail prices.
>>
>> Congress voted automatic pay increases so media wouldn’t report on their
>> thievery each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?
>>
>> Progressives are Evil
>
> Wasn’t it a REPUBLICAN Congress that foisted that automatic pay increase
> c&*$?%p on us?
>
> Why, I do believe it WAS!

Why I believe that is why the TEA PARTY is taking back the the party for
the voters.

Because unlike Democrats that want more corrupt masters like Obama, the
TEA PARTY wants to get rid of them all. and star anew.

“Progressive” progress

admin — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 23:31:58 +0000

On 11/16/2011 4:33 PM, @&*$?%gmail.com">erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 16, 12:53 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2011 12:26 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact, the so-called “progressive” movement is and always has been
>>>> regressive. Progressivism is neo-feudalism.
>>
>>> They are really “Oppressives.”
>>
>> If G&*$?%s are NOT any different than Hetero males then they need NO
>> special laws and all the gay marriage laws and the gay hate laws are
>> redundant and already cover all of the male gender. SO the laws are
>> Not needed and unconstitutional. Gay must not be a gender and must not
>> be eligible for any special laws or special concern since they are not
>> eligible to be forced out of the gender specific showers.
>>
>> Interesting how that works, the Left(Progressives) says the G&*$?%S deserve
>> special laws and special rights to marriage because they are
>> different…. but when you agree they are different and say that the
>> G&*$?%S need to be forced to use Facilities specific for their “SEXUAL
>> PREFERENCE” or gender, the G&*$?%S suddenly say they are no different than
>> any other men?
>
> The left isn’t saying g&*$?%s deserve special laws and rights. The laws
> on the books now discriminate against g&*$?%s.

So you say g&*$?%s are different than the Male Gender? Because Males of the
Male hetero Gender are NOT being discriminated against?

Then you would agree that as the Female Gender and male Gender are
separated, the G&*$?%s and hetero males need to be separate facilities.

To curb sexual predation.

>>
>> *WELL WHICH IS IT*
>>
>> At one time before HATE CRIMES for g&*$?%s… the g&*$?%s were subject to
>> SOCIAL TABOOS and looking at people in showers would get them into a
>> fight but in today’s HATE CRIME atmosphere one man can’t punch out
>> someone that’s GAY, because of his sexually aggressive behavior…. The
>> Liberals and G&*$?%s have made the average hetero-man into a target that
>> has no legal or physical defence against the sexual stalking of gay
>> sexual predators.
>>
>> The Progressives have *oppressed* the gender of males who are hetero
>> sexual and made them unprotected and/or less equal under the law and
>> easy targets for sexual predators since their attackers and stalkers are
>> protected with special hate laws that allow the g&*$?%s into the same
>> showers.
>>
>> –
>

“Progressive” progress

admin — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 17:53:13 +0000

On 11/16/2011 12:26 AM, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article ,
> George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> In fact, the so-called “progressive” movement is and always has been
>> regressive. Progressivism is neo-feudalism.
>
> They are really “Oppressives.”

If G&*$?%s are NOT any different than Hetero males then they need NO
special laws and all the gay marriage laws and the gay hate laws are
redundant and already cover all of the male gender. SO the laws are
Not needed and unconstitutional. Gay must not be a gender and must not
be eligible for any special laws or special concern since they are not
eligible to be forced out of the gender specific showers.

Interesting how that works, the Left(Progressives) says the G&*$?%S deserve
special laws and special rights to marriage because they are
different…. but when you agree they are different and say that the
G&*$?%S need to be forced to use Facilities specific for their “SEXUAL
PREFERENCE” or gender, the G&*$?%S suddenly say they are no different than
any other men?

*WELL WHICH IS IT*

At one time before HATE CRIMES for g&*$?%s… the g&*$?%s were subject to
SOCIAL TABOOS and looking at people in showers would get them into a
fight but in today’s HATE CRIME atmosphere one man can’t punch out
someone that’s GAY, because of his sexually aggressive behavior…. The
Liberals and G&*$?%s have made the average hetero-man into a target that
has no legal or physical defence against the sexual stalking of gay
sexual predators.

The Progressives have *oppressed* the gender of males who are hetero
sexual and made them unprotected and/or less equal under the law and
easy targets for sexual predators since their attackers and stalkers are
protected with special hate laws that allow the g&*$?%s into the same
showers.

Rand Paul says green ‘radicals’ have taken over Obama’s policies

admin — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:11:39 +0000

On 11/12/2011 3:49 PM, Seon Ferguson wrote:
> On 13/11/2011 5:12 AM, @&*$?%gmail.com">erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com wrote:
>>> How is Rand Paul a “Fascist” please explain…
>> Same way any liberal is a “socialist” to you far right-wingers. It’s
>> a label for something you disagree with. I mean, as long as you far
>> right-wingers want to play that game, don’t expect the other side to
>> just sit on the sidelines.
>
> Oh like “neocon”, I get it.

The only difference is that Liberals, Democrats and Communists and
Progressives….. *WE are all socialists now*

They took over the Democrat party, Democrats were at one time
Capitalists. Until the Party coup that led to the progressives in
charge, now they are all masquerading as Democrats and claiming to be
something they are NOT. What has happened is the Democrats are now
socialists.

Rand Paul says green ‘radicals’ have taken over Obama’s policies

admin — Sat, 12 Nov 2011 18:46:44 +0000

On 11/12/2011 1:12 PM, @&*$?%gmail.com">erschroedinger @&*$?%gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 12, 1:46 am, Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> On 12/11/2011 2:28 AM, AGWFacts wrote:
>>
>>> And who gives a s&*$?%t what the
>>> hysterical fascist nutter “Rand Paul” believes?
>>
>> How is Rand Paul a “Fascist” please explain…
>
> Same way any liberal is a “socialist” to you far right-wingers. It’s
> a label for something you disagree with. I mean, as long as you far
> right-wingers want to play that game, don’t expect the other side to
> just sit on the sidelines.

NEWS WEEK said “We are all Socialists NOW”.

And you are….

The Progressive-Socialists have taken over the DNC and all the Democrat
Party. ANYONE on the Left has but one place to vote and that is with
the Socialists.

The Progressives have been engineering this coups d’état for 100 years
and they feel like they have WOn and that they now own America like they
own Europe.

YOU ARE ALL SOCIALISTS.

NOW it’s a race to see which party can BUY the most votes with taxpayer
funds. Bush tried it but Democrat-Socialists have a head start, and
there are still Capitalists on the RIGHT who called it what it was, BIG
GOVERNMENT SOCIALISM.

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

admin — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:10:49 +0000

On 10/24/2011 10:50 PM, Jack wrote:
> Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>> A founder of ‘Occupy Wall Street’ talks about movement’s origin & what
>> comes next
>>
>> People criticize you for your numerous goals and messages. What is the
>> main message in this movement?
>>
>> What this protest is about is an opposition against the fundamental
>> inequality in society
>
> So… it’s a protest against reality?
>

They want Socialist utopia and they always blame someone for standing
between themselves and their utopia and they always end up killing the
people they blame for standing between themselves and their Socialist
utopia.

Lately they have been killing babies in the uterus because the babies
stood between themselves and Socialist utopia and now they have decided
that capitalists are the ones standing between socialists and utopia.

Mao did it, Stalin did it, Pol Pot did it….. all the Socialists do it.
The 1900 – 1960′s radical Socialists(Progressives or Fabian Socialists)
chose to kill babies that stood between themselves and Socialist utopia.

Today the American Socialists want to expand their enemies list from
babies in the uterus to Bankers and capitalists and they want to kill
them too. Socialists love to place blame and kill people.

Greedy Bank of America faces outrage over debit card charge (Blame the ‘rats, including Obama)

admin — Sat, 01 Oct 2011 05:18:51 +0000

On 9/30/2011 10:47 PM, RichTravsky wrote:
> “Fake Dr. Jai Maharaj” wrote:
>>
>> Bank of America faces outrage over debit card charge (Blame the Rats,
>
> Blame republicons
>
>> including Obama)
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/bank-of-america-faces-outrage-over-debit-card-charge/2011/09/30/gIQAp8zGAL_story.html
>>
>> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
>> Om Shanti

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd wrote the Bill that forced this
redistribution of wealth. Wealth from you and to the re-election
campaigns of Barney Frank and the Progressives.

Soros’ Very General Way of Predicting Economic / Financial Failures

admin — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:49:03 +0000

On 9/5/2011 12:18 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>>>>> How did Soros know that that wasn’t going to happen?
>>
>>> He determines outbreaks of mob insanity, i.e., teabaggerism, and bets
>>> against it.
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> Soros creates conflict with his money through Socialist and Democrat
>> groups,
>
> You think competition in the marketplace of ideas is conflict?
>
> As usual the “libertarian” opposes free speech because he knows he
> cannot compete.
>
>
> Bret Cahill

The conflict is more visceral than simply ideas…. Union THUGS want
to intimidate and Progressives want to MANDATE AND RULE BY FORCE.

Obama wants to bribe and coerce and threaten and ignore the constitution
and simply not enforce laws, those are more than ideas.

Those are conflicts that border on treason and incompetence and malpractice.

Those aren’t “ideas”

Doesn’t this mean that even Progressives think Progressives are assholes?

admin — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 04:33:11 +0000

["""Don’t Call ‘Me’ A Progressive If …

By now many of you know where ‘I’ stand when it comes to titles,
labels, and categories that are broadly and many times ignorantly
painted all over people or viewpoints. I’ve been over this before; how
I’ve been labeled and attacked as Anti-Semite and Anti-Muslim, Sexist
and Feminist, Democrat and Republican …one time or another, sometimes
even simultaneously. What is it with all these confusing labels floating
around and being used right and left? Seriously?! Neocon. Neoliberal.
Repug. Bleeding-Heart Liberal. You name it!

Anyhow, today I am going to talk about another very confusing
label-adjective that is being used too often, and most often too
broadly, confusedly and inaccurately. The fashionable adjective is
‘progressive;’ being progressive. What does it really mean to be
progressive? Once upon a time I was sure I knew what it meant. Then came
a time when I was not sure what it was. And now, I don’t have a clue
what it means to be a progressive. I’ll go even further and say, if it
means what many people claim it does, and use it as, then, I consider it
an adjective far from flattery.

Sure. You can look it up in any dictionary and give progressive a common
definition. Progressive: Favoring or advocating change, improvement, or
reform; employing or advocating more enlightened ideas… Or find the
popular definition of progressivism as a political attitude favoring or
advocating changes or reform through governmental action. If you were to
stop here, stay within this once-upon-a-time definition and usage frame,
and then call me a progressive, I’d nod and say ‘thank you.’ However
life is never that simple. And in this case the overly popular
progressive does not mean what it used to mean, and is not used as it
once was.

Allow me to put it in perspective. I am going to use real-life context
and experiences; the real life being my life, and the experiences coming
directly from me and my surroundings:

A few months ago I was having lunch with a good friend whom I’ve
known for over 20 years. He has university degrees and a high-level
position in an IT related company. I was telling him how happy I’d been
without a TV and garbage propaganda sold as news for over the past six
years. He agreed and said: “I try to limit myself and only watch
progressive news delivered by real progressive reporters. Most of the
time I tune in to the Daily Show- Jon Stewart.” I asked: “you mean for
fun and satire?’ He said: ‘Not really. For a progressive take on major
news.’

My friend used the word ‘progressive’ three times in describing himself
and his choice for ‘news.’ I have heard Jon Stewart being described as a
real progressive reporter, and a solid source for real news for some
progressives more than a few times. Let’s move to another
experience-context:

One of the mothers in my daughter’s play group is a teacher who
considers herself politically savvy and an activist; that is, in a
progressive way. A few weeks ago we were casually chatting about
activism and alternative news sites for activism. She said: ‘I don’t
like the mainstream. I go to a few progressive sites to get my real news
and real take on political issues.’ I asked, ‘Which progressive site
tops your list?’ And she replied: ‘Of course Huffington Post!’

To make a long story short on that particular experience: my daughter’s
friend’s progressive mother considers Madame Huffington the mother of
all progressives. And next:

A few days ago a former colleague stopped by for a cup of coffee. We
started talking about the awfulness of our plentiful wars. I took the
opportunity and asked him whether he regretted his Obama vote. He
responded: ‘Of course not. That was a progressive thing to do. Even with
all these wars and stuff we are better off. We proved to the world that
yes we can elect a black man as our president, and that is a sign of a
progressive nation. Electing Obama as a president is a win for all of us
progressives; no matter what…’

Suffice it to say, my progressive friend is determined to vote
progressive again in order to make a progressive statement to the rest
of the world. He will vote a progressive vote; he will vote Obama.

I know more than a few activists who consider themselves progressive,
and define their progressive activism as actively chatting at DailyKos
on a daily basis. I also know progressive antiwar activists who consider
our war in Libya a progressive intervention, not war. I know a few
progressives who consider raising the debt ceiling while increasing
government expenditures as we increase all taxes real progress…

[By the way if you are worried about my personal neighbors, friends and
former colleagues who were exhibited in the examples above (albeit
without their personal information) getting ticked off by what I am
saying here, please don’t. They consider this site far from being
progressive, thus never visit here.]

If Jon Stewart is a real progressive reporter delivering progressive
news; if Arianna Huffington and her AOL-owned site is the mother of all
progressive websites; if Obama is a progressive president and electing
him a progressive thing to do; if our new wars can be written off as
progressive interventions …Then, if you call me a progressive I’ll
consider it a cuss word; a real insult!”"”]

Doesn’t this mean that even Progressives think Progressives are
a&*$?%s? You’re all Socialists NOW, enjoy the freedom to be anything
you want as long as it’s a Socialist. Socialism where one size fits all.

He is a socialist and a communist

admin — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 17:16:54 +0000

[" .....most importantly he is not working for us. He is working
quite effectively AGAINST mainstream middle class America. He is a
socialist and a communist, a black liberation theology neo Marxist
revolutionary throw-back to the 60's. The Symbionese Liberation Army
declared war on us back in the 60's. Well they never let up. He is their
fifth column. Or our fifth column, depending on how you look at it. He
is a combination of labor union Chicago thug politics and Lenin/Trotsky
communism. It goes back to Plato's Republic, which is why it is so
popular among the pseudo-intelligencia. The perfect society is one
watched over by benevolent intellectually superior dictators. And who
are these benevolent intellectually superior dictators, why John Kerry,
Barak Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Charles Schumer,
and a cadre of semi-organized crime henchmen. The chosen recognize their
calling. You know if you are one of them, and they know if you are one
of them. And if you are not one of them, then you are meant to dig coal,
fight wars, and drive their limos.

Obama is an economic kamikaze pilot. He has been trained by Cloward and
Pivens and his messiah is Saul Alinsky, whose subsequent messiah is
Satan himself. Everything he does promotes that agenda. And every lie is
justified as it is a necessary step towards socialist nirvana. As
Alinsky said, if a revolutionary murders babies and loses he is a
terrorist. If he murders babies and wins, he is a founding father. They
are all psychopaths. Their philosophy is morally bankrupt.

Now the coup de grace.... So are the Republicans. The Progressives of
both parties are playing good cop bad cop with us. They both share a
similar globalist elitist vision of the future. They both work towards
the demise of our beloved Republic. Or rather the transcendental
elevation of our republic to Plato's original dream, and yours and my
worst nightmare. For if you are not a chosen one of the elite then you
are one of the not so elite. Welcome to steerage."]

Where Obama was born is a moot point because where ever it was, he is NO
American, he is the Anti-American.

Obama is fighting against the American system rather than accepting
Americas wishes…. Obama JAMMED ObamaCare down our throats and it
didn’t start or end with that.

U.S. Credit Rating a Victim of GOP Sabotage

admin — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 05:12:50 +0000

On 8/6/2011 10:59 PM, snelling north wrote:
> On 11-08-06 08:30 PM, China Blue Tip Wrench wrote:
>> Barney Frank caused the debt crisis.
>>
> Between him and Dodd, darn near.

Throw in a few more Progressives and Bush that didn’t try very hard to
stop the Congressional coercion and violations of the constitution, and
that about covers it.

The mortgage collapse was created by GOVERNMENT.

When it comes down to it, the TEA PARTY is the anti-Progressive PARTY.

admin — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 02:07:58 +0000

On 8/5/2011 8:23 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 18:55:47 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> @&*$?%blackhole.nebulax.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/5/2011 6:13 PM, Matt wrote:
>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 17:00:32 -0500, “Eddie Haskell”
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Matt”
wrote in message
>>>> news:9ooo37tk3n8hdviburi2a84o6p2p52ijnp @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>> On Fri, 5 Aug 2011 16:33:26 -0500, “Eddie Haskell”
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Matt”
wrote in message
>>>>>> news:p6jo3718udlaqrs854uph613m0j1blphb3 @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 22:44:18 -0500, “Eddie Haskell”
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Leon Manfredi” wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:echm37licrn2h8iap97alob3hk7brithql @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:34:32 -0800, Matt
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 18:55:09 GMT, “Kirby Grant”
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4-Aug-2011, “Clay North” wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> X-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 14:29:56 UTC (s03-b15.iad)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is very likely that the negative, but true, comments Sarah Palin
>>>>>>>>>>>> made
>>>>>>>>>>>> against “moderate” GOP leader , Mitt Romney, will destroy his
>>>>>>>>>>>> chances
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> primaries. Sarah made the comments to Sean Hannity on his Fox T.V.
>>>>>>>>>>>> nightly
>>>>>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> She was also devastating in her attacks on Obama’s socialism and
>>>>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>>> ruinous
>>>>>>>>>>>> economic policies. The gist of what Palin said is that Romney is
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>>>>> liberal, and he is devious in masquerading as a conservative.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Following
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sarah’s appearance on Tuesday night, last on Hannity Michelle
>>>>>>>>>>>> Malkin
>>>>>>>>>>>> strongly supported Palin in her attacks on Obama and Romney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, America does not listen. Only fringe loonies listen. Real
>>>>>>>>>>> Americans
>>>>>>>>>>> actually ignore her because she is an idiot. It doesn’t speak very
>>>>>>>>>>> well
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> those nut jobs who actually pay attention to what she says.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you see the Tea Party with a Palin/Beck ticket. Dumb and Dumber
>>>>>>>>>> for President.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don’t knock it….. What other way to guarantee re election????
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama / By-dumb will be your strategy then?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Eddie Haskell
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still hoping the Republicans kick the Tea Party out and find a good
>>>>>>> candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We understand. As an avowed socialist you reject the ideals of the
>>>>>> founders
>>>>>> and therefore reject the tea party. That’s why you’re a democrat and
>>>>>> anti-American just like Hussein.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL Your a real joke. So now it is kiss up to the Tea Party of your
>>>>> un-American. ROFL.
>>>>
>>>> Correct, as they represent the ideas of the founding, believe in the
>>>> constitution and the rule of law.
>>>
>>> LOL No where does it say “WE the Corporations” in the constitution.
>>> No where is there a income tax either.
>>>>
>>>> Everything that democrats despise.
>>>
>>> Your really generalizing there aren’t you. Republicans and Democrats
>>> have many different views.
>>>
>>> Tea Party also has many different views, sorry. Beck is not the Tea
>>> Party/
>>
>>
>>
>> The TEA PARTY has 3 main goals,
>>
>> *Economic sanity*
>
> No problem with that
>
>> *Smaller CONSTITUTIONAL government*
>
> This depends on what and how. The Idea sounds good, but everything is
> in the details.

The details are in the Constitution….. Live within those limits and
quit growing past the limits set by the constitution. It ain’t BRAIN
SURGERY it’s simply that the constitution does set limits and using
courts to ignore and rewrite the limits is unconstitutional. There are
limited ways to change/Amend the constitution. SO follow it.

>
>> *Strong security*
>
> AS a former member of the seals have no problem with this.
>
> It is the methods the Tea Party uses that cause the problem. It
> reminds me a little to much of what Hitler used in the 1930s.

The UNions and the ACORN THUGS are more like Brown Shirts, the TEA PARTY
ARE OLD GRAY HAIRED WOMEN and a bunch of children, hardly a scary
bunch…. I’ve been to some rallies and the people were far less scary
than what I see at the DNC rallies on TV.

I often think I must be the scary looking one at the TEA PARTY MEETINGS
and I’m NOT interested in causing any problems.

>> All the rest of the minutia is what YOU LIBERALS attribute to the TEA
>> PARTY in your own drug addled brains.
>
> Again if someone doesn’t agree with the “Party” they are liberal well
> guess that is better than being called un-American. LOL Hitler used
> the same line.

Some people don’t hear you unless you first hit them upside the head to
get their attention. Words don’t kill people but can get some attention.
Since Liberals speak to me in this language, I give them the courtesy
of returning the favor.

And if you don’t fit the “PROFILE” of the typical Liberal that HATES
AMERICA and thinks they have a right to put a gun to my head and their
hand in my pocket…. then you might be more choosy as to what groups
you align yourself with.

I have to say that ignoring and violating the constitution that the
Public officials and the military take an oath to protect and defend or
supporting those that do treat the constitution as toilet paper doesn’t
paint a picture of patriotism. But to each his own. Maybe there is
America and there is “America” and you have to choose which America you
want to support. I grew up in “America” and I think the free “America”
is the one I liked.

>>
>> There is *NO*
>>
>> ABORTION
>> LEGALIZE DRUGS
>> RELIGION
>> GAY MARRIAGE
>
> So when the Republican debates come to town, the Tea Party
> presidential candidates will say they have no opinion on Abortion,
> Religion has no place in Government and they would not oppose Gay
> Marriage.
>

NO… they’ll need to support the three issues I mentioned, but beyond
that I don’t care which things you look for or what I look for as long
as any person running meets those three points first. The TEA PARTY
has NO CANDIDATES, they support other party candidates, that’s why
Democrats and Republicans can be TEA PARTY supporters. There is no
membership sign up or dues or any way to run or control the TEA PARTY.
If there were a Democrat that’s fighting for those three items and the
Republican in the race is NOT, and the Republican has a record that
shows he wants to spend money wildly then I would consider the Democrat
or the Libertarian or getting a TEA PARTY person to run against the
Republican as an independent or NOT even voting.

The problem I have with voting for a Democrat is they’re all liars….
so I can’t be sure that they will do what they say, Clinton said he
wouldn’t sign NAFTA and then when it hit his desk he signed it. All the
democrats supported him even after he lied and that makes them as bad as
Clinton. Republicans threw BUSH Sr. under th ebus when he lied about taxes.

BUSH Sr raised taxes after he said he wouldn’t, that lost him my vote. I
won’t VOTE for someone that lies to my face. Obama is a flat out liar
and I could NEVER vote for him.

Interestingly the TEA PARTY is the mirror image of the Progressives that
have no real successful party of their own, they are cast to the wind
and similarly have a few main issues that they promote and that’s why
you get the likes of Colon Powell and John McCain who are Progressives,
yet they claim themselves to be Republicans….. Republicans that love
BIGGER GOVERNMENT and more taxes and more spending.

When it comes down to it, the TEA PARTY is the anti-Progressive PARTY.

Are you complaining that Republicans are NOT nearly as good at destroying the Nation as Democrats

admin — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:00:31 +0000

> “Ubiquitous” wrote in message
> news:61469b10-8b10-4c93-b977-98857038a263 @&*$?%t9g2000vbs.googlegroups.com…
>> On Jul 21, 9:47 pm, Martin Phipps wrote:
>>
>>> The Republicans had eight years to run the country and they ran the
>>> economy to Hell.That’s a fact.

And it has only taken Democrat-Progressives 4.5 years to do more damage
than Republicans could do in 8 years?

Are you complaining that Republicans are NOT nearly as good at
destroying the Nation as Democrats?

“Progressives”

admin — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 15:32:03 +0000

On 7/22/2011 10:36 AM, Jeff M wrote:
> On 7/22/2011 9:30 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011 06:35:00 -0400, Steve
> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>> The most recent change in the Estate tax law has an exemption
>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>> allows up to 10 million dollars to be passed on tax free
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As usual, you’re wrong. It’s half that amount: $5,000,000.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “The applicable exclusion amount is increased to $5,000,000 for
>>>>>>>>> estates
>>>>>>>>> of decedents dying on or after December 31, 2009.”
>>>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164878,00.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The changes in the law allow spouses to add an unused exemption
>>>>>>>> from a
>>>>>>>> spouse to their own, creating an exemption of “up to 10 million
>>>>>>>> dollars,” precisely as I said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 5 million per person…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You’ve been proven wrong on this a couple of times already.
>>>>>> Repeating
>>>>>> the lie won’t make it any more believable.
>>>>>
>>>>> You think the IRS is lying about it? Really?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=164871,00.html
>>>>
>>>> No. I think that your ability to read regulations is deficient. The
>>>> article you posted talks about the individual, but does not include
>>>> the option of portability for a spouse.
>>>
>>> So you admit that the 10 million figure includes two
>>> persons’ allowances…. 5 million for each….
>>
>> As long as you admit that it is in reference to one inherence as was
>> stated to begin with.
>
> At the risk of arguing a very minor point to death, the 10 million
> dollar exemption is, in fact, used for and can only be used for a single
> widowed person’s estate.

Who’s money is it?

It does NOT belong to the Government…….

If G&*$?%s ever had a lagitimate reason to be married it’s the “death tax”
and yet they are Democrats that want more taxes so that leaves the G&*$?%s
with no ability to say they want the tax advantage of being married
since they want to pay more tax.

It really makes that a hollow argument for G&*$?%s and truth is Government
has no business in Marriage or in Taxing money away from a Family
because someone dies.

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.

The Dumbest Idea I’ve Heard This Week!” <>

admin — Mon, 23 May 2011 14:14:25 +0000

On 5/23/2011 9:21 AM, Anonymous Infidel – the anti-political talking
head wrote:

>>>> I’m pretty sure Bush started the wars (except for our actions in
>>>> Lybia) Do you now hold that Bush was a progressive?
>>
>>> Clearly he was a Rooseveltian/Wilsonian progressive.
>> Kool. Redefine people’s politics
> Clearly I wasn’t. (By all means feel free to point out where they
> differed in policies)
>
> “My administration has a job to do and we’re going to do it. We will
> rid the world of the evil-doers” – Bush
> “The world must be made safe for democracy” – Woodrow Wilson

Bush was a “Compassionate Conservative” if you remember them… they
are really and truly *Progressive-Republicans* . The first hint is that
they wanted to change what we called them… That’s the first sign of a
Progressive, they always need to change the lexicon so that they can
confuse people as to who they really are, we all know what Socialists
are and Progressives are Socialists and all the other names are just to
help them hide in the crowd. When the s&*$?%t hit the fan and Bush had a
choice, he chose to turn his back on Capitalism and interfere with the
financial markets rather than simply closing down Fannie and Freddie and
other QUASI government corporations and regulations that were used by
government to create the collapse.

Watch what they do… Progressives will always grow government and
spend money wildly and turn their backs on capitalism. They will seek
to force us to live life their way.

Mitt Romney turned his back on Capitalism in Massachusetts when it came
to the RomneyCare health care. Mitt looks like a
“Progressive-Republican”. We have very few Republicans at the top of
the PARTY POLITICS that are NOT Progressive politicians.

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

admin — Sat, 21 May 2011 16:21:18 +0000

On 5/20/2011 2:35 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> > wrote:
>> On 5/12/2011 6:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>>> “Congress shall make no law” so they can also appropriate No money
>>>> since it takes a law.
>>>>
>>>> It also works for amendment 10 where powers NOT given to the Federal
>>>> Government belong to the States or the people.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> The Federal government can’t write laws when the powers are NOT given to
>>>> it,
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>>> because the States and the People have that power.
>>>
>>> Neither the States nor the People have the power to enact taxes
>>> applying across the country.
>>
>> Spending money, is *NOT* taxing.
>
> I didn’t say it was.
>
>> Ooooppssss you Liberal-Progressives got the unlimited Income tax passed
>> by hook or crook
>
> My parents weren’t even born when the income tax amendment was
> ratified. Not that the income tax has ever been “unlimited”.
>
>> but forgot that you have no unlimited power to spend.
>
> I personally have little power to spend. But Congress’s limits are
> pretty nebulous, and it decides what those limits are, absent a court
> case (which necessarily must come after the fact).
>
>> You have to write a law to spend Federal money
>
> I don’t have to do any such thing. I need to become an employee of a
> Federal agency to do that.
>
>> and you ONLY have the
>> power to write laws for that which the constitution delegates powers to
>> the Federal Government.
>
> “Necessary and proper”, “general welfare”, and the 14th amendment all
> provide delegations of power that are enormous.

Actually they are restrictions and not “powers”

*necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers*
That says you can’t write new laws for powers that aren’t already
written into the constitution. That is a limitation or restriction.

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

This says you can write necessary and Proper laws, you can’t ignore Our
Rights. Your rights don’t trump mine.

*provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the *United* *States*
That says the Congress must “provide” general welfare for the United
States Government. Not some Nebulous entity of people called America.
If the Constitution means “THE PEOPLE” it says the people and when it
means “THE STATES” it says the States or “the several States”. And when
it says United States Government it says the United States.

Federal taxes spent for Federal needs…. Another limitation that
suggests that the Federal Government has no power to spend or give
Federal taxes on Buying State’s or the People’s favors. That is a
Restriction.

The 14th amendment is a set of restrictions passed by the Federal
Government on the States to try to nullify the 10th amendment and it
wasn’t entirely successful.

“Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. *No State* shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; *nor shall any State* deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person *within its
jurisdiction* the equal protection of the laws.”

Once again these are “RESTRICTIONS” on State powers and NOT new powers
for the Federal Government to use on We The People…. Read amendment
10 and see that powers NOT given elsewhere or prohibited are retained by
The States and The People. No powers are given to the Federal
Government here in the 14th amendment, just restrictions on the States.

The “Privileges and immunities of the United States Government” nor
deprive any person means they are limiting the States powers to the
confines of Federal powers that are given but Where NO Federal power is
given then the States have no limits.

This was obviously an attempt to prevent States from doing what they did
prior to the Civil War when they asserted their 10th Amendment States
Rights.

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

admin — Thu, 19 May 2011 17:32:08 +0000

On 5/12/2011 6:34 AM, Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> > wrote:
>> On 5/11/2011 7:02 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>>> “Bob LeChevalier” wrote in message
>>> news:b20ls6d9it0u8vsd7ej01u493lvccn8o20 @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>> “Scout” wrote:
>>>>> “Bob LeChevalier” wrote in message
>>>>> news:q63js6lg11e2asksi0udd3gdkojm1be3fu @&*$?%4ax.com…
>>>>>> “Scout” wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, that as long as
>>>>>>>>> Congress and the Courts think that,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Courts decide what the Constitution says, not you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the language, meaning and intent of the Constitution decides that,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The courts decide what the meaning and the intent are, not you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is what the judicial power is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, since you seem to feel the courts are right, show me in the
>>>>>>> Constitution where much of the current spending is authorized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is authorized if it is appropriated by Congress in a bill
>>>>>> originating in the House. I believe that applies to all such
>>>>>> spending.
>>
>> “Congress shall make no law” so they can also appropriate No money
>> since it takes a law.
>>
>> It also works for amendment 10 where powers NOT given to the Federal
>> Government belong to the States or the people.
>
> Wrong.
>
>> The Federal government can’t write laws when the powers are NOT given to
>> it,
>
> Wrong.
>
>> because the States and the People have that power.
>
> Neither the States nor the People have the power to enact taxes
> applying across the country.

Spending money, is *NOT* taxing.

Ooooppssss you Liberal-Progressives got the unlimited Income tax passed
by hook or crook but forgot that you have no unlimited power to spend.

You have to write a law to spend Federal money and you ONLY have the
power to write laws for that which the constitution delegates powers to
the Federal Government.

Where is your power over Health Care delegated to the Federal
Government? All Federal Spending on health care and specifically
abortions is unconstitutional. The Supreme court already said a woman’s
right meant the government has no power over a woman’s reproductive
health(body) and that means NO POWER TO WRITE LAWS about a woman’s
reproductive system, and that includes appropriations laws that could be
used for abortion and reproductive health of a woman.

…but I see you Liberals choose to try to stand on both sides of the
fence at the same time. You think a woman’s right to choose is sacred
and you also want government to interfere and write laws and
appropriation laws that violate the constitution and interfere with a
woman’s “RIGHT”

Anchor babies are 100% legal

admin — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 20:13:33 +0000

On 4/11/2011 4:03 PM, Strabo wrote:
> On 4/11/2011 12:36 PM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 4/11/2011 11:22 AM, Jarbidge wrote:
>>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 02:57:54 -0700, Charles Bell wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is nothing in logic or in the
>>>> Constitution itself that forces the judiciary to throw out law for
>>>> Constitutional reasons.
>>>
>>> So logic tells you we still have the children of slaves to safeguard?
>>>
>>> Get a grip.
>>
>> It’s been 150 years since slavery, we are speaking of grandchildren and
>> great-grand children of slaves…. In any case the government can’t
>> make anyone equal, all the government can do is treat everyone equal as
>> the constitution says. There is no Right to remain equal after born,
>> just a Right to be treated equal by the government.
>>
>>
>
> Since government cannot make everyone equal, the Liberal/Progressives
> stack the deck against the cause of this inequity – the Evil White
> Male. The EWM must be made to pay for his transgressions.
>
> That’s the way the Liberal/Progressives see it. It reflects the
> manner in which they mentally construct their world. Individual
> freedom which scares or makes the Liberal/Progressive feel bad and
> must not be tolerated.
>
> As for slavery, the Black Mafia plays government like a violin
> and white Americans are forced to dance their tune.
>
>
>>
>> What’s sad is The Liberals have destroyed the government treating people
>> equal and decided that they could pass unconstitutional laws to force
>> people to treat one another equal while government doesn’t.
>>
>
> Who is pro-union? Who is an egalitarian. Who is for ‘social justice?’
> Who believes that guns kill people?
>
> Collectivists, that’s who. People who believe that man is inherently
> bad and must be forced into governable groups. The individual doesn’t
> exist and freedom is relative. Do-gooders seeking retribution and
> ‘fairness’ use government to impose their will. This places all power
> with the state.
>
> Nazi Germany was a hotbed of collectivists. The USSR was built on
> collectivist principles. History repeats. Need I say more.
>
> So it is with today’s Liberal/Progressives

The difference between Hitler and Obama is that Hitler loved his Nation
and was Nationalistic. Obama doesn’t love his Nation and seeks a world
power to dominate his own country.

Marginalizing the Tea Party .. Again

admin — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:35:50 +0000

On 4/4/2011 11:42 AM, Dano wrote:
>
>
> “Sid9″ wrote in message news:incn1r$hi9$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me…
>
>
> wrote in message
> news:R7KdnUs_kvnETgTQnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>> Just chronicling the latest efforts to marginalize the Tea Party.
>> Remember that just last week, Schumer admitted that the liberal caucus
>> has instructed him to always characterize the Tea Party as “extreme.”
>> Here are some of the latest examples ..
>
> >
> WHY would anyone need reminding that Teabaggers (yeah…I said it) are
> extremists?
>
> Neal Boortz is a raging f&*$?%g loon.

The reason the TEA PARTY sprung from nothing and grew so fast is their
*centrist* *positions* of get back to Following the constitution, be
fiscally responsible and maintain the National security that has been
eroded.

It’s a simple and centrist movement that every real American should be
able to support, but we do have the Progressive-Socialists and
Progressive-Republicans who can’t agree with any of that common sense
effort to repair the Nations gaping wounds left by
Progressive-Socialists that want to ignore the constitution and spend us
into eternal debt and wreak the economy and open the borders to drug
dealers and human trafficking while destroying our military as a
fighting force.

The extremists are the Progressives that seek to destroy the way of life
that America was built on.

For some queer reason Progressives think people are as dumb as Cass Sunstein.

admin — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 23:31:49 +0000

On 4/2/2011 6:22 PM, Steve wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 14:41:39 -0700, “5950 Dead, 1093 since 1/20/09″
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Did you know that most major corporations paid NO income taxes at all
>> to America last year, including Exxon, GE, and Koch Industries?
>
> No corporations pay income tax, they only collect it from their
> customers.

Under Oz-Obama they keep the tax and us it as a bribe to support Obama
and pay off the taxpayer loans they had, so it is free tax payer money
that Obama is laundering for friendly corporations to keep.

Join the Christian Coalition’s Campaign to Stop Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

admin — Thu, 31 Mar 2011 21:35:41 +0000

> On 3/30/2011 4:41 PM, JLS wrote:
>> You keep asking this question and once again the answer is “NO!”
>>
>> If you don’t approve of abortion, don’t have one. In the meantime
>> _Roes vs. Wade,_ which guarantees the reproductive privacy of our
>> nation’s women, is the law of the land.

If a woman can’t be limited for bad decisions why do you continue to
punish people that need a liver transplant who made bad decisions?

Some people can’t get a liver/heart because they drink alcohol or have
other habits, and the government sanctions the decision to let them die
and NOT give them the choice, simply because of the Progressives moral
stigma that goes with drinking.

Why should a woman have a choice to kill a baby in their uterus and yet
a man that needs a liver can’t get a choice, it seams that Liberals
Morality is how they base who lives and who dies, and Liberals see
themselves as more moral than anyone else and the only ones worthy of
making those decisions.

Why we need an Alternative Minimum Tax for G.E. = ‘GE’ A “Bad” Corporate Citizen !

admin — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 22:05:34 +0000

On 3/26/2011 8:13 AM, RHF wrote:
> On Mar 25, 10:36 am, dave wrote:
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=2&hp
>
> – The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion,
> – and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations
> – in the United States.
>
> This is an example of where a ‘Low’ Corporate Tax
> for an International Mega Corporation like GE might
> produce Revenue that otherwise might not get Taxed.
> -tax-fairness-&-tax-equality-&-just-taxation-
> -equals-corporate-citizenship-&-responsibility-
>
> A Low Corporate Tax Rate of 10% that is Equal to
> the Lowest Personal Income Tax Rate and the
> Capital Gains Tax Rate : Would produce significant
> Federal Tax Revenue.

This is Why Obama IS a Bad President….

Obama is giving his cronies health care and other *WAIVERS*

These “special” breaks for “special” people and corporatins is creating
“special” tax exemptions.

NOT very equal of Obama and the Progressives.

National debt 14.2 trillion and increasing at over 4 billion a day!

admin — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 20:50:12 +0000

On 3/26/2011 4:28 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “wy” wrote in message
> news:05c332bb-4f94-4a6c-bec0-af6ceb3e2b62 @&*$?%o30g2000pra.googlegroups.com…
>> On Mar 26, 4:04 pm, John Smith wrote:
>>> On 3/26/2011 12:47 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>>>
>>> > …
>>> > Who are going to shoot?
>>> > The debt is owned primarily by Americans.
>>>
>>> > What a dumbass na ve idea!
>>>
>>> > You have proved that you belong in the Bozo Bin!
>>>
>>> Actually, the debt is owed by banksters and the fed who have printed
>>> money on promises to deliver something of value at a later date, knowing
>>> full well this would never happen.
>>>
>>> I really don’t owe any portion of the $45,000 they have me listed for,
>>> neither do any of my children, or their young children!
>>
>> Yet you have accepted all the services like rebuilding infrastructure,
>> defense, whatever government programs you may’ve taken advantage of
>> either knowingly or unknowingly and, of course, social security and
>> medicare and medicaid should you get there if you haven’t already.
>> Nothing’s free in the land of the free.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I say, “Let’s pay our debt in bullets!”
>>
>> Bullets only go so far, then you’re out of them, and with no money to
>> pay for more, America gets to be out of luck.
>>
>>>
>>> And, as to your question, “Who are [you] going to shoot?” I’d reply,
>>> “Anyone coming to collect on the fictitious debt!”
>>
>> Good luck if you think you can hold up against some bazookas or even
>> be functional after a dozen tear gas grenades have been thrown through
>> your windows.
>>
>> It’s your simplistic nonsense that’ll only end up seeing you dead
>> before your time. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing.
>>
>>
>>
>
> The solution is simple….but no one will face it.
>
> 1. A wealth tax
> 2. A truly progressive income tax
>
> In other words tax where the money is.
>

Just where is the money, is it in the IQ or in the education or the
buildings or the Song lyrics? Some people have an education that has
“value” how will you tax that? Some people have a talent that is of
value, how will you tax that when they choose to not create a lyric? Or
they create a Lyric and sing it for a meal or a woman that has a talent
for sex that rides in fine cars and eats fine foods, how will you tax
that asset? If you tax a car or a house or gold or cash as an
asset(money) how will you be equal and tax these other assets that
can’t be confiscated? Why tax only some people and NOT others?

Your system lacks the “FAIR” part of what you are trying to achieve.
These people with intangible assets from God can’t be taxed on their wealth.

> No use taxing poor people who have little money…they spend it all
> anyway contributing to the GDP
> Rich people do not.
>

Explain where the rich hide money so that it contributes zero to GDP.

It is Government and government employees that add zero to GDP, they
consume GDP.

> It’s time to pay the piper for the excesses that started with Republican
> St Reagan, continued under HW Bush, and nearly finished us off with the
> incompetent bush,jr.

It’s time to get rid of the Progressives yoke of oppression on the
capitalist markets and the people and go back to creating wealth.

Tea Party Cleans up the Shit & Feces the ObamaUnion Thugs Left Splattered in the Wisconsin capitol Building

admin — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:54:21 +0000

On 3/20/2011 1:05 AM, ByeStander wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 11:31:51 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/18/2011 1:58 AM, ByeStander wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 01:50:28 -0600, ByeStander
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 6 Mar 2011 05:44:33 -0800 (PST), chatnoir
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 4:56 am, walt tonne wrote:
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 8:14 pm, “Overpaid Obamacrat Criminal Union Thugs”
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Typical Obamagoot Union Thugs, shitting on everything they touch , just
>>>>>>> like the sewer rats they are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/so-who-is-cleaning-up-the-wisconsin-c…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least the barrren old douche bags demonstrating did not leave
>>>>>> tampons behind!
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical right-wing rag!
>>>>
>>>> Tell me. Was it Reagan that said government isn’t the solution,
>>>> government is the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> “Reaganomics” saved the US from the economic calamities of Jimmy
>>> Carter.
>>>
>>> Jimmy Carter had no clue about how to fix stagflation and now we are
>>> headed straight for stagflation with Obama on similar stupidity.
>>
>>
>>
>> Socialism distorts their understanding of money and economics…..
>> Progressives and Liberals are so confused by their own premise that they
>> become unable to make any rational decision.
>>
>>
>> Every Obama decision is connected by and determined on Redistribution of
>> wealth.
>
> Interesting. A genuine possibility.
>
> Right now, I am wondering if Obama has revealed himself as, in effect,
> a servant of muslims with the invasion of Libya. Just what does
> America have to gain with this?

Obama wants to redistribute our wealth to do that he needs more Socialists.

The Real Bad Nasty Nuke “Stuff” -or- The Relatively Not As Bad Clean Coal “Stuff”

admin — Fri, 18 Mar 2011 15:20:21 +0000

On 3/18/2011 5:53 AM, Christopher Helms wrote:
> On Mar 17, 1:04 pm, bpnjensen wrote:
>> On Mar 17, 10:18 am, RHF wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 17, 8:48 am, bpnjensen wrote:
>>
>>>> On Mar 16, 4:31 pm, RHF wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 10:21 am, cuhu…@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> – All that nuke stuff (water leak at Toronto plant,
>>>>> -http://www.drudgereport.com
>>>>> -http://www.rense.com
>>
>>>>> Cuhulin,
>>
>>>>> So… The Present Day Choice is “The Nuke Stuff”
>>>>> -or- Clean Burning Coal at 1/10,,, 1/100… 1/1000 ! ! !
>>>>> The Centuries—Millenniums Long Environmental Pollution
>>
>>>>> What Do We Do For the Next 10 to 20 to 40 to 80 Years
>>>>> Until We Get To Some ‘Other’ Clean Safer More Sustainable
>>>>> Fuel and Power Source.
>>>>> -yeah-i-know-sit-in-the-dark-and-freeze-in-the-cold-
>>
>>>>> Your Choice : The Real ‘Bad’ Nasty Nuke “Stuff”
>>>>> -or- The Relatively Not As Bad ‘Clean’ Coal “Stuff”
>>>>> -one-or-the-other-for-now-:-
>>>>> -then-you-can-choose-what’s-next…-
>>
>>>>> and that’s the way ‘i’ see it ~ RHF
>>
>>>> Thorium Fission + Solar/Wind + Fusion in 40 years = permanent
>>>> solution.
>>
>>>> Bruce
>>
>>> ? How Do You Shut Down The Un-Safe Deadly Polluting
>>> Nuclear Power Plants Now {Today] An Get To There !
>>
>>> First ? How Do You Shut Down -a- Clean Coal !
>>
>>> Second ? The Un-Safe Deadly Polluting Nuclear Power
>>> Plants Now {Today] -a- Clean Coal !
>>
>>> Third ? An Get To There -a- Clean Coal !
>>
>>> Wind Takes Up To Much Land : An Is Only A Supplement
>>> Power Source To Some Prime Source Like . . .
>>> Clean Coal !
>>
>>> Solar Takes Up To Much Land : An Is Only A Half-Answer
>>> {Daylight} Power Source To A Full-Time Source Like . . .
>>> Clean Coal !
>>
>>> Thorium Fission Is Still A Source of Nuclear Radiation
>>> And Radiation By Products and Waste -while- Clean
>>> Coal Has Significantly Less of Both.
>>
>>> ROTFL Fusion in 40 years -oh-well- Until Then Clean Coal !
>>
>>> America’s Answer Remains for the Next 10 to 20 to 40+
>>> Years -is- Clean Coal – imho ~ RHF
>>> .
>>> Your Choice : The Real Bad Nasty Nuke “Stuff”
>>> -or- The Relatively Not As Bad Clean Coal “Stuff”http://groups.google.com/group/rec.radio.shortwave/msg/4d72ef494dec66f9
>>> America’s Own Clean Coal !
>>> American Jobs In Clean Coal !
>>> America’s Energy Independence Is Clean Coal !
>>> Getting From Here To There Requires Clean Coal !
>>> .
>>> .- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> – Show quoted text -
>>
>> You must be living in a vacuum.
>>
>> Thorium = No meltdowns
>> Thorium = Much lower grade, *much* shorter half-life, MUCH more
>> manageable wastes.
>> Thorium = Technology about take off in other countries. AGAIN, the USA
>> is falling behind.
>> Thorium = A way to burn existing nuclear waste into less harmful
>> materials.
>> Thorium = An eminently abundant fuel supply for 1,000 years.
>> Thorium = No reehouse emissions at all.
>>
>> Solar = dropping costs almost daily.
>> Solar = No greenhouse emissions at all.
>> Solar = Ability to be placed on every rooftop, parking lot and freeway
>> in America without damaging other resources. 10,000 square miles (and
>> dropping daily) will power the entire nation.
>> Solar = Held back only by oil and coal politics.
>> Solar = Abundant fuel for more than 1,000,000,000 years.
>>
>> Fusion = Held back by coal and oil politics.
>> Fusion = Putting to bed almost all the problems of fission
>> Fusion = Predicted ablity to be commercial in 50 years if we have the
>> foresight to fund research.
>> Fusion = No greehouse emissions at all.
>> Fusion = Abundant fuel for 16,000,000,000,000 years.
>>
>> The pieces are in place. Basically, all we lack right now are
>> foresight, imagination and the politics to make things actually happen
>> – you know, all the things that made America Great to start with. Guys
>> like you, with your prejudices and can’t do attitude, hold us back.
>>
>> Stop looking backward.
>
>
>
> A nuclear power plant has got to be the most convoluted, complex, Rube
> Goldberg plan for boiling goddamn water that anybody ever came up
> with.

That is the Progressives recipe for boiling water….

They use similar recipes for taxing you…..

Progressives use that style of recipe for the Constitution and law…

Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism

admin — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:36:45 +0000

On 3/13/2011 11:14 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
> On 3/13/2011 10:31 PM, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> On 3/13/2011 8:08 PM, Lon Jimmes wrote:
>>> HEADLINE: As dying Libyan rebels scream, “Where’s Obama?” Obama plays
>>> golf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> OVERVIEW: Libyan rebels are getting massacred by Gaddafi’s forces, and
>>> many are shouting, “Where’s Obama?!” as they are butchered by govt
>>> loyalists.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LINK:
>>> http://www.examiner.com/american-politics-in-vancouver/as-dying-libyan-rebels-scream-where-s-obama-obama-plays-golf
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Rightards are pushing for intervention, but few realize what
> intervention really means. The most common suggestion is the
> implementation of a no fly zone.

You call me a Rightard and I’m saying that we don’t need to get mixed up
in another Civil War. We didn’t need Bosnia/Kosovo or Iraq and we
don’t need Libya’s Civil War.

We don’t Need the *Socialist United Nations* or the mercenary ARMY of
#NATO to be cover for the USA starting a new war in Libya….

We in the USA can increase our own OIL and nuclear to make up any loss
in oil from Libya. And we can sit on the side lines and watch Libya
become what ever it becomes….. if Libya strikes at us then bomb it
into the stone age, until then ignore them. Americans died for American
freedom, let Libyan’s die for their own freedom. Anything worth having
is worth getting for yourself.

Do you NOT see that the Socialists Are after control of oil while at the
same time trying to deprive the USA of nuclear power….

All you need to do is look at Hugo Chavez and then Obama sending
$2Billion dollars to the new Socialist in Brazil and George Soros for
Oil research and production in Brazil. Then there is China and Cuba that
will drill off Florida, and Drilling in the Gulf by everyone but the
USA(Capitalist)….. You see the trend?

The Whole socialist plan was hatched when Reagan showed that their
Socialist economies couldn’t out-produce a #Capitalist America, the
Socialists instantly knew the only way to conquer the USA(Capitalism)
was to starve it of energy, we are out of the “Cold War” and into the
“Energy WAR of Attrition”.

#Socialists are trying on multiple fronts with things like a VAT tax on
oil and carbon credit trading tax and they are halting coal and oil
production with regulations and the Socialists are gaining ground every
day and your gas and heating and electric costs are rising and soon
you’ll all be broke and energy will be so artificially high that the
economy will be stalled with high unemployment and no growth and it will
be that way for ever if Socialists can get their way. That is the plan.

*Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism*

Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism

admin — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 17:26:00 +0000

You call me a Rightard and I’m saying that we don’t need to get mixed up
in another Civil War. We didn’t need Bosnia/Kosovo or Iraq and we
don’t need Libya’s Civil War.

We don’t Need the *Socialist United Nations* or the mercenary ARMY of
#NATO to be cover for the USA starting a new war in Libya….

Do you NOT see that the Socialists Are after control of oil while at the
same time trying to deprive the USA of nuclear power….

#Socialists are trying on multiple fronts with things like a VAT tax on
oil and carbon credit trading tax and they are halting coal and oil
production with regulations and the Socialists are gaining ground every
day and you gas and heating and electric costs are rising and soon you
will all be broke and energy will be so artificially high that the
economy will be stalled and it will be that way for ever. That is the
plan.

*Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism*

TSA Proposal > > > Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers

admin — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 17:48:43 +0000

On 3/6/2011 3:29 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
>> “Ray Fischer” wrote in message
>>> Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>>> Documents Reveal TSA Research Proposal To Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train
>>>> Passengers
>>>>
>>>> Giving Transportation Security Administration agents a peek under your
>>>> clothes may soon be a practice that goes well beyond airport
>>>> checkpoints.
>>>>
>>>> Newly uncovered documents show that as early as 2006, the Department
>>>> of Homeland Security has been planning pilot programs to deploy mobile
>>>> scanning units that can be set up at public events and in train
>>>> stations, along with mobile x-ray vans capable of scanning pedestrians
>>>> on city streets.
>>>
>>> Scanning pedestrians is clearly unconstitutional.
>>>
>> I’m truly surprised at your statement, given the liberal mindset that the
>> big benevolent gummint should be proactive in preventing crime.
>
> It’s not the liberals who are keen on a big police state. It’s the
> right-wing fascists.

Government is growing faster under Liberal-Progressives like Obama than
ever before in History. Obama has created the BIG police state….

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

admin — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 06:33:02 +0000

On 3/3/2011 6:55 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 3/3/2011 11:02 AM, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On 3/3/2011 1:33 PM, wolfagain wrote:
>>> Obongo Economy “moving right along” in REVERSE!
>>
>>
>> For Obama, that’s what he wanted, so in “Liberalish” the language of the
>> Leftists, this is moving forward…..
>
> Who was it that created this mess?

Progressives….

http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/content/view/185/126/

http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/content/view/198/54/

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

admin — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:57:23 +0000

it’s been Liberal-Progressives that led us down this road to ruin.

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

admin — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 19:02:09 +0000

On 3/3/2011 1:33 PM, wolfagain wrote:
> Obongo Economy “moving right along” in REVERSE!

For Obama, that’s what he wanted, so in “Liberalish” the language of the
Leftists, this is moving forward…..

The Progressives plan is to *redistribute* and that requires taking from
those that have and giving to those that have NOT. When you take from
those that hire and give to those that need to be hired you get not just
stagnation but the momentum of progress and wealth creation goes in
reverse…. and that proves to Obama that he is being successful in his
Progressive plans to redistribute.

So you have to understand that in Liberalish…. a bad economy is a
good indication of Leftists ideological success.

Obama will interfere and ignore the constitution just enough to keep the
economy at a level that is bad enough to make Progressive gains but not
quite bad enough to get him impeached.

Obama and Liberal-Progressives want more and faster success, which
translates into greater Private sector failure. You only need to speak
*Liberalish* to understand that.

Rasmussen Poll Says 87% Of Republicans / Tea Partyists Support Ghaddafi’s Brutal Crackdown On AntiGovernment Leftist Progressives

admin — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 03:38:53 +0000

On 2/23/2011 8:36 PM, Phil wrote:
>
>
> Rasmussen Poll Says 87% Of Republicans / Tea Partyists Support Ghaddafi’s Brutal
> Crackdown On AntiGovernment Leftist Progressives

Progressives love government…..

does Harry Reid want to also ban GAY sex,since it is worse for America than Prostitution could ever be?

admin — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:22:06 +0000

On 2/23/2011 10:27 AM, Marvin wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:46:33 -0800, Foxtrot wrote:
>
>> http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=7974295
>>
>> Nev. Sen. Reid says it’s time to ban brothels
>>
>> CARSON CITY, Nev. (KABC) — Sen. Harry Reid is calling for a ban on
>> houses of prostitution, saying the state of Nevada should be about new
>> ideas, not the “oldest profession.”
>>
>> ~~~~
>>
>> What happened to personal freedoms, Harry?
>
> I thought the oldest profession was politics?

Keep the sporting houses and get rid of the Progressives like Harry Reid
that want to micromanage all of us. The Progressives have been down
this road of micromanaging us before, it was called Prohibition.

We don’t need Federal Government baby sitting 24/7…..

What happened to the Democrat-Liberals cries about keeping government
out of our BEDROOM and that sex between people is NONE of the
government’s business. Suddenly Harry Reid wants government to decide
who we have sex with, does he want to also ban GAY sex? Since it is
worse for America than Prostitution could ever be?

When did Harry Reid decide government should regulate sex? And if
government can regulate sex then GAy sex is up for being regulated out
of existence.

Reid wants to ban whorehouses

admin — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:51:22 +0000

We don’t need Federal Government baby sitting 24/7…..

Federal judge strikes down Obamacare

admin — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 00:22:17 +0000

On 2/6/2011 6:38 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
> On Feb 6, 5:21 pm, Josh wrote:
>> On 2/6/2011 4:45 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 6, 4:11 pm, Josh wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2011 3:50 PM, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 4, 1:47 pm, cpt banjo wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 4:48 pm, Charles Bell wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On the one hand, losing at the Supreme Court would mean an end to
>>>>>>> meaningful Constitutional government but winning means at long last a
>>>>>>> distinct line drawn be on the application of the Commerce Clause — a
>>>>>>> line started with the Lopez decision on which Justice Kennedy fell on
>>>>>>> the right side.
>>
>>>>>> Lopez is easily distinguishable, as it didn’t involve primarily
>>>>>> economic behavior.
>>
>>>>> The proponents of the law claimed that it did, just as the proponents
>>>>> for Obamacare claim that it does.
>>
>>>> … as did the proponents of the law at stake in Raich.
>>
>>> Gonzales v. Raich was primarily a supremacy issue over the commerical
>>> production of X.
>>
>> There was no commercial production in Raich.
>>
>
> The sale/use/distribution/manufacture is lumped under “production”,
> commercial or personal. Which is it for you? Common sense or Wickard
> v. Filburn?
>
>
>>>> But what sets the insurance mandate apart, even if it is found to be not
>>>> primarily economic, is it is likely Necessary and Proper (under SCOTUS
>>>> precedent) to make effective the regulations barring insurance companies
>>>> from rating based on pre-existing conditions.
>>
>>> That is why I think federal Judge Vinson’s argument wins on non-
>>> servabilty that the whole law has to be struck down and Congress would
>>> have to address the issues one-by-one.
>>
>> How does Vinson win both the severability argument and (prior to
>> reaching that issue) that the mandate is unconstitutional under the
>> Necessary and Proper clause?
>>
>
>
> Obamacare cannot have it both ways: find the mandate inseparable from
> the whole of the scheme *and* consider the mandate severable in logic
> or in law (as you suggest). Sure, the federal government *could* pass
> separate laws stepping over the states’ regulation of the medical
> insurance inductry, as some in the GOP suggest in various ways, but
> that has little to do with the argument put by the government that the
> feds need an individual mandate to make the scheme work.
>>
>>
>>> Cptb and you misunderstood my point.
>>
>>> The purpose of New-Deal/Progressive court decisions was to
>>> progressively abolish original-intent of the Constitution and
>>> establish a wholly “constitutional-law” government, and although
>>> Wickard v. Filburn itself would not be struck down, the line would be
>>> drawn against stretching the Commerce Clause to include the
>>> possibility that Congress can regulate any activity if there can be
>>> found any economic benefit/detriment involved. Remember: exhaling
>>> carbon dioxide can be linked to an economic activty via the Global
>>> Warming Hoax, and thus it can been seen that the process of living
>>> itself involves economic activity to the left. The argument that
>>> everyone will get sick and die and therefore the federal goverment has
>>> to wholly regulate that activity (via medical insurance, and what’s
>>> next?) is no different.
>>
>> When you erect strawmen (*)
>
> There is no strawman argument in the above. It is well documented
> history and may even be found in Obama’s own words: in his search (in
> vain) for the positive liberties advocated by Progressives within the
> document of the Constitution itself.
>
> http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/26/obama-in-2001-how-to-bring-about-redistributive-change/
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/negative_liberties_and_obama_n.html
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226132/obamas-redistributive-change-and-death-freedom/andrew-c-mccarthy
>
>
>
>> (*) The government does not argue “Congress can regulate any activity if
>> there can be found any economic benefit/detriment involved

Can’t regulate speech for profit, or religion for profit.

Government can’t use one right/power to take away any that belongs to
the people.

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

You can’t use the power to regulate commerce to regulate any right the
people have. So you have zero right to regulate guns with the commerce
clause.

The mindless Democrats

admin — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 17:02:21 +0000

On 2/6/2011 9:43 AM, Who-Gives–a- F&*$?%k Bowl wrote:
> The Mind of a Conservative
>
> I am pleased to announce that there are no more “Republicans” in the state
> of Texas. None. Nada. Zip. at least, not among the general public. The
> governor, Rick “Good Hair” Perry is a Teabagger that has become a national
> embarrassment every time he opens his mouth with talk of “succession”, and
> the Texas state Legislature now has a Republican Super-Majority thanks to
> two Democratic defectors, but the last time I personally met a
> self-described “Republican” was way back in 2000. Not because I’ve lived a
> sheltered life or live in a deep “blue” state or because they’ve been
> vanishing like ST:TNG crew members (yes, I’m that geeky). No, I have lived
> in Texas almost my entire life and probably know more “Conservatives” than
> “Liberals”. But something interesting I’ve noticed is that while I proudly
> tell everyone “I’m a Liberal Democrat”, It has been roughly a decade since I’ve
> met a Conservative that will own up to being “a Republican”. They ALL claim
> to be “a Libertarian” or “an Independent”, yet someone keeps voting these
> Republican idiots into power. Apparently, the label “Republican” carries a
> “stink” they don’t want to be associated with. And can you blame them?

Maybe people feel the Democrats and Republicans have jumped toward the
Progressive Left while Libertarians are very much in the same place they
have always been because the Libertarians actually believe in the
Constitution as the document that anchors the Nation in law. The
Progressive-Republicans are being tossed out of the Republican party by
the TEA PARTY PEOPLE because the Progressive PEOPLE don’t believe in
Constitution. You might as well be a Democrat if you’re ignoring the
Constitution, no reason to be Republican since when you believe there is
NO Constitution, it means you are a Democrat ignoring it. In essence
there’s only one group that believes in ignoring the constitution so No
matter what they call themselves they are hyphenated as PROGRESSIVES.
And since Progressives have stolen the Democrat party from the Democrats
and it has NOW become the Democrat-Progressive Party, the true goal is
to keep all the Progressives bottled up in the Democrat party so they
can’t infect and lie their way to control any other political parties.
People instinctively know that they need to contain the Progressives to
the Democrat Party and keep them out of their churches and other areas
of life.

The Progressives plan is to make up all laws as we go with NO
limitations on government. The Libertarians plan is to keep the
Constitution in place and use it to limit government as the founders
intended us to do.

In a NUTSHELL Progressives want to create a new Nation with more
government(Social Justice) and without our constitution while the rest
of us want our Nation to continue forward with some small differences in
the actual role of constitutional government in our lives.

typical Liberal double talk where Liberal-Progressives place themselves above the laws.

admin — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:41:44 +0000

When a Federal Judge says the Military can NO longer reject g&*$?%s the law
banning g&*$?%s was instantly struck down as unconstitutional and the
entire military was forced to comply.

Why is it that when ObamaCare was struck down as unconstitutional the
Government(Obama) says it will ignore the new Federal ruling and
continue their unconstitutional behavior?

It is typical Liberal double talk where Liberal-Progressives place
themselves above the laws.

I suggest that *the MILITARY NOT ACCEPT ANY G&*$?%S AS LONG AS* OBAMACARE
is still being considered the law of the land.

There is NO reason for Obama to ignore the rulings and the Military to
be bound by the rulings.

get a chuckle out of people that refuse to learn, they block anything that doesn’t reaffirm their own ignorance

admin — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:08:13 +0000

On 1/31/2011 12:44 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 13:12:33 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 1/30/2011 12:53 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 10:54:09 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/29/2011 11:57 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 15:30:08 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
>>>>> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 12:01 pm, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think that you are prepared for “no gas” then you
>>>>>>>> are being even more silly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also lived in the 1970′s and I drove a P/U truck and I pumped gas
>>>>>> while in high school, and I put out the signs that said “NO GAS” so I
>>>>>> think I know what the score is on gas prices and the shortage and the NO
>>>>>> GAS parts of the story….
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had plenty of pissed-off people when I’d drag the “NO GAS” sign out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> prices were capped and that helped create the shortages. What was
>>>>>> 24.9cents (I remember because I filled up my sisters Triumph Spitfire at
>>>>>> HESS for $2.00) and very soon 25cents per gallon was 60cents and 75cents
>>>>>> when you could get it in long lines. Welcome to the USSR bread lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If gas doubles or triples this time it will be $6 – $9 for a gallon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Welcome to the stone age*
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought that you said that you were prepared for no gas? Yes, if
>>>>> the Suez Canal is closed to shipping, gas could easily reach 6-9
>>>>> dollars a gallon with all petroleum products going right along with
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> I’m prepared….. well, better than most. Who is ever 100% sure
>>>> about what chaos will bring?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it’s better said by saying “I have cut back my reliance on the
>>>> rest of society” that relies on oil.
>>>>
>>>> So if you fail and die from destabilization created by oil, it will be
>>>> less consequential to me, than it will be to most.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Do you rely on plastic and driving and oil fired electric? if so, good
>>>> luck.
>>>
>>> If you rely on anything that requires oil to produce or transport,
>>> don’t have a lifetime supply on hand, and think you are going to
>>> survive, good luck. If the oil stopped…everything in the modern
>>> world stops.
>>
>>
>> Pretty much like Prohibition stopped all drinking…..
>
> Logic isn’t one of your strong points is it?
>
> I’m done with you. There are other, more productive things, to do.

Oil will become an underground economy, just as Liquor did.

Things that people want to do will NOT simply “end” Prohibition made
that obvious. It was a lesson to the Progressives who thought they
could just ban and force people to live as Progressives mandate.

I get a chuckle out of people that refuse to learn anything, they block
anything that doesn’t reaffirm their own ignorance.

Prepare for the Rise of Libertarian Progressives

admin — Mon, 17 Jan 2011 17:47:39 +0000

On 1/17/2011 7:01 AM, Dan Clore wrote:
> News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
>
> [This could be a hopeful sign, indeed. See original for video.--DC]
>
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/01/progressive-libertarianism-the-exciting-political-dynamic-ralph-nader/
>
> Nader: Progressive-libertarian alliance ‘the most exciting new political

Progressives have been trying to pretend they’re “for” freedom for a
long time and they have managed to sell that lie in the Democrat Party
and to a lesser extent in the Republican Party… but selling the idea
that Progressives are Libertarian is a bridge too far.

Libertarians won’t have any of that BS.

There are Democrat-Progressives and Republican-Progressives like McCain,
but there are no Libertarian-Progressives, it’s an OXYMORON.

*Progressives* believe there’s *NO SUCH THING AS TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT*

Mt. Soledad cross unconstitutional again

admin — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:09:59 +0000

On 1/12/2011 11:39 AM, Armageddon Fred wrote:
> Strabo wrote:
>> Liberal-Progressives know their enemy. Their plan
>> is to eliminate the cross, period.
>
> That’s the same lunacy that murdered 6 people last week end.
>
>
That kid was crazy long before last week….

The “crazy” is what killed six people, not the sunlight that landed on
the murders face or the sounds that fell on his ears.

A Record 260,000 Americans Quit Searching for Jobs…Loon Bloggers Easily Duped… Celebrate Lower Unemployment Numbers for December!

admin — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:28:02 +0000

On 1/7/2011 12:55 PM, Bob wrote:
> “Ringer” wrote in message
> news:x5qdnUR4p4bnzbrQnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d @&*$?%neonova.net…
>>
>> “wolfagain” wrote in message
>> news:fefcb5c5-20ce-4617-a3f4-fa65ba21a754 @&*$?%p8g2000vbs.googlegroups.com…
>>> The ACTUAL number of Americans without jobs INCREASED to 14.5
>>> Million.
>>>
>>> The REAL employment facts just keep getting worse and WORSE doesn’t it
>>> folks?
>>
>> How can it get worse? The Republicans are now in and are going to solve
>> all our problems.
>
> Too many obstructionist Democrats in the Senate and the White House.
>
>

They are “DESTRUCTIONIST” Democrats, Republicans are Obstructing the
destructionist Liberal-Progressives.

When the other side seeks your National destruction all you can do is
obstruct them.

Democrat says it’s wrong to shaft the unemployed at Christmas

admin — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 02:36:40 +0000

On 12/18/2010 1:18 AM, Jane_Galt wrote:
> RichTravsky
wrote :
>
>> Jane_Galt wrote:
>>>
>>> John Galt wrote :
>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2010 09:52 PM, Jane_Galt wrote:
>>>>> Larry Hewitt wrote :
>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you call it a lie without even addresing this?:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said “it’s a fallacy to think they “cant find jobs now”.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a lie. There a re, as noted 5 officially unemployed people
> for
>>>>>> every job. Even if every job was taken, no matter the salary or
>>>>>> conditions, *four times as many people* would still be unemployed.
>>>>>
>>>>> False assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the min wage was done away with and people werent getting
> permanent
>>>>> Unemployment Welfare now, they could agree to work for less money and
>>> jobs
>>>>> would magically materialize. Wow! Let the free market be free to
> work!
>>>>
>>>> I think about this often in many contexts:
>>>>
>>>> I travel a lot. If I go to China or Hong Kong or Singapore or
> wherever,
>>>> there’s a guy who opens the cab door for me while another guy is
> getting
>>>> my bag who then passes it off to another guy who drags it into the
> hotel
>>>> as I walk by another guy whose job it is to point to the checkin desk.
>>>>
>>>> In the US, there’s nobody outside the hotels. I park my own car and
> drag
>>>> in my own bags and have to hunt around for the checkin desk and then
>>>> haul my own bags to my room.
>>>>
>>>> This is crappy service brought to you by this thing called the
> “minimum
>>>> wage”.
>>>>
>>>> WalMart and Target and the grocery store are equally annoying. A Super
>>>> Wal Mart or Super Target has what, about fifty cash registers, forty
> of
>>>> which are idle at any moment in time. Again, crappy service brought to
>>>> you by the minimum wage.
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>> Now, these two examples are very different. If you’re a minimum wage
>>>> lover, you can make a case for the WalMart situation being necessary.
> If
>>>> Walmart could pay whatever, maybe they could pay a cashier five bucks
> an
>>>> hour. There would be no waiting because there would be more people
>>>> working at checkout, but everybody would be getting paid s&*$?%t. I get
>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> However, in the first example, it’s not that the hotels only hire one
>>>> guy where there should be four; THEY WIPED OUT **ALL** of those jobs.
>>>
>>> Dictatorships produce such reseults.
>>>
>>>> So, now, in a four star hotel in the US, the standard of service is no
>>>> valet and no bellhop at all. So, in this case, these jobs were totally
>>>> destroyed by the minimum wage.
>>>>
>>>> Seems to me there should be some sort of “sub-minimum wage” that could
>>>> be offered to perhaps maybe students or something. Then, these kids
>>>> could go make five bucks an hour bellhopping or something after
> school.
>>>> which would improve service standards at the hotels.
>>>
>>> Wages are a consensual ( voluntary ) agreement to a mutual exchange of
>>> value between two parties, no one is “exploited”.
>>
>> Ah. Unions.
>>
>>> There’s no need at all for any minimum wage.
>>
>> Yes, there is. What’s the poverty level income?
>>
>
> You’re hung up on the past. The Progressives have plans to de-develop the
> United States and bring us down to the same level as 3rd world nations.
>
> There’s 50 cents a day in your future, you’d better start planning for it.
>
>
Start building your Mud Hut today….. Raise some flies in your spare time.

Only 733 days until President Obama is reelected ! !

admin — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 16:36:39 +0000

>> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <0114767d-7196-4b67-8635-03823ae9b…@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Yup wrote:
>>
>>>> Bring it on Sarah P-brain !!
>>
>>>> And be sure to pick your running mate wisely (just like senile geezer
>>>> McCain did – ) — how about Meg Whitman or Linda McMahon
>>>> or Christine O Donnell !?!? BWAA HA HA HA HA HA !!!

The same people, their mirror images won in over 500 different elections
in Local, State, and Federal races.

You are picking on 3 in the bluest of the failing broke Liberal States
where no one thought there was any chance just two years ago and yet
they all came very close and the unions and ACORN had to focus all their
money and manpower and corruption just to save the ruling class Liberals
like Harry Reid…..

With the GOP targeting Harry and his ruling class next time since they
already won all the rest, We will push out the Ruling class Liberals and
a big pile of the Republican Ruling class like McCain and his
Progressives.

Almost 25% of California is now unemployed thanks to Democrats.

admin — Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:14:23 +0000

On 10/29/2010 1:53 PM, Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:19:40 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>> In article @&*$?%news.eternal-september.org>,
>> “Sid9″ wrote:
>>
>>> “Orval Fairbairn” wrote in message
>>> news:o_r_fairbairn-
> @&*$?%70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net">F75F21.23532128102010 @&*$?%70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net…
>>>> In article , Michael Coburn
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:16:38 +0200, California Poverty wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chasing off all the big dollar businesses then making nice with
>>>>>> the q&*$?%s and illegal Mexicans did the state in.
>>>>>
>>>>> The asinine stupidity of such a statement is self evident. The
>>>>> death blow to California was prop 13.
>>>>
>>>> No — it was the irresponsible spending and taxation of CA citizens
>>>> that precipitated Prop 13. Officials thought that they had an
>>>> inexhaustible source of revenue to enable them to embark on (half)
>>>> vast programs.
>>>>
>>>> Prop 13 was a citizens’ revolt against such policies. “Progressives”
>>>> still don’t get it!
>>> .
>>> .
>>> Prop 13 was a straightjacket for state government. Now Californians pay
>>> for their irresponsibility.
>>>
>>>
>> IIRC, a straightjacket is a tool you use on somebody who gets out of
>> control. A fitting analogy!
>
> Mob rule is what prop 13 was and is

So it’s “Democracy” when the Leftists win and Mob Rule when Leftists lose?

======> “NO MORE GODDAMN DEMOCRAT BASTARDS!! <======

admin — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 15:31:37 +0000

On 10/17/2010 1:25 AM, TheLoneRanger100 wrote:
> Yup……..The Goddamn Democrats are DESTROYING THE
> NATION……..Donchaknow……….

The real problem is that the Republicans are going along with them and
at times helping them.

That’s why there’s a TEA PARTY, so there will be actual opposition to
the Democrats plans for destroying what was a great and free Nation,
until Progressives came to the fore front.

======> “NO MORE GODDAMN DEMOCRAT BASTARDS!! <======

admin — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:27:53 +0000

On 10/17/2010 1:25 AM, TheLoneRanger100 wrote:
> Yup……..The Goddamn Democrats are DESTROYING THE
> NATION……..Donchaknow……….

The real problem is that the Republicans are going along with them and
at times helping them.

That is what there’s a TEA PARTY, so there will be actual opposition to
the Democrats plans for destroying what was a great and free Nation
until Progressives came to the fore front.

Nancy Pelosi and her “Cracker Jacks” doctrine

admin — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:26:43 +0000

On 10/15/2010 7:07 AM, The PHANTOM wrote:
> On Oct 14, 7:13 pm, AmericaMourning wrote:
>> Let me get this straight. We’ve been “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced
>> to purchase and wil be fined if we don’t, written by a committee whose chairman says
>> he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempts
>> themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered
>> by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who
>> is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke.
>>
>> What the hell could possibly go wrong?
>>
>> Also…………..
>> The Obama Administration refuses to take action against the 8 million non-violent
>> illegal aliens who continue to work in U.S. based jobs. Their status as illegal
>> residents is a crime itself, as they continue to hold jobs that should go to legal
>> residents and U.S. citizens. With high unemployment numbers around the country, this
>> is a serious situation that deserves better attention from the President and his
>> staff.
>>
>> Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Lamar Smith (R-TX) recently stated
>> that, “…under President Obama, work site enforcement administrative arrests are
>> down 77%, criminal arrests are down 60%, indictments are down 64% and convictions are
>> down 68%.” This shows the growing unwillingness of his Administration to solve one of
>> the biggest domestic policy issues currently facing the nation.
>> …..immigrationi…@numbersusa.com
>
> And it had to be passed before we could find out what’s in it.
> PROGRESSIVES !!!!

*Nancy Pelosi and her “Cracker Jacks” doctrine*

your unalienable rights are NOT endowed by GOVERNMENT

admin — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 15:11:26 +0000

MSNBC is running a commercial that quotes the Declaration of
Independence and typically the idiots on that Progressive-Socialist
network can’t even quote the Declaration of Independence correctly…

*Declaration of Independence*
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

For some reason these MSNBC Progressive-Socialists are like Obama the
Progressive-Socialist, and they also choose to omit specific parts of
our founding documents…. it’s as though they are trying to spread
propaganda and lies via omission of the “actual” words.

It’s typical of the lying and manipulating Progressive-Socialists.

The truth is your unalienable rights are *NOT* endowed by GOVERNMENT,
but the Progressives don’t want you to know that. These
Progressive-Socialists hate our founding documents so much that they
can’t even quote them accurately, because they can’t bring themselves to
say things that show you have freedom and the Government isn’t the all
powerful entity that grants you “ALL” your rights.

We’ll cut .we’ll cut. . .something

admin — Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:35:59 +0000

On 10/9/2010 11:26 AM, dave wrote:
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>> You also omitted the cheap tax rates we have for the benefits all
>>>> Americans receive from our government
>>>
>>> Low taxes benefit the government since the more the economy grows the
>>> more money comes into the government, and the more jobs for people.
>>
>> That’s never worked.
>>
>> Why do you cling to fairy tales that have been shown to be failures
>> again and again? Are you stupid or insane?
>>
>
> Herbert Herbert Bush called it Voodoo Economics

H. W. Bush and his family are closet Progressives.

Microsoft Proposes Government Licensing Internet Access

admin — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:18:16 +0000

On 10/7/2010 11:45 PM, Tesla wrote:
>
> State should have power to block individual computers from connecting to
> world wide web, claims Scott Charney, Microsoft vice president of
> Trustworthy Computing.

The Elite should decide who gets to use the Internet, is that a death
sentence to the Internet or what, that will end the profitability of web
sites and will in the end kill the internet.

The internet wasn’t created to be an elitists play thing.

The internet will survive a Nuclear BOMB attack, but elite
Liberal-Progressives and their Socialist plans will actually do what
that Nuclear BOMB can’t do, they will kill the internet via financial
attack.

Criminal Firemen Hang Around and Do Nothing While Gene Granick…

admin — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:05:19 +0000

On 10/6/2010 11:42 PM, Padraigh ProAmerica wrote:
> A municipality may make any arangements for firefighting they may wish,
> be it a full-time tax-supported fire company, a tax-suported volunteer
> department, or a system like this where you pay a fee to join in a
> compact. No pay, no play.

The Liberals here are ignoring that this was a co-operative system like
they love so much because it’s a government run voluntary Socialist plan
for offering services.

I get a chuckle since their complaint is that it’s NOT a full blown
Socialist government owned and mandated payment that’s required or the
GOVERNMENT places a tax lien on your house and puts you and your family
out in the street.

This tells you where these “Liberals and Progressives” really want to be
and where they are trying to take us.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

admin — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 00:07:40 +0000

On 10/5/2010 6:15 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>> What was it Einstein said;
>>
>>>> “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
>>>> violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move
>>>> in the opposite direction.”
>>
>>>> “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
>>
>>> Einstein was talking about scientific theories which should explain
>>> all observations, but not introduce additional complexity in that
>>> model of reality.
>>
>> “Everything”
>>
>> “Any”
>>
>> First you say Einstein is a socialist, then you say it only applies to
>> science?
>>
>> You are grasping at straws.
>
> Yer talking purty tough for a vehemently anti-Marxist teabagger who is
> too doggie poopie stoopid to realise the passage above attributed to
> Marx was taken from the Federalist #10 by James Madison.

It could have been from “Alice in Wonderland” for all I care, it was way
too full of s&*$?%t to be worth sifting through, and Madison was the one
that liked the “Central bank” wasn’t he… while Jefferson said the
central bank was more dangerous than a standing army. So Madison and
Marx were fond of government without limits.

It looks like Madison and Marx could have been friends, at least they
had a few streams of thinking that were similar.

You see, when you make things less simple for no reason, you create
confusion….. you proved what you were wanting to disprove.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

admin — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:21:55 +0000

> On Oct 3, 6:57 pm, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> Take a gander at the first reply to the first reply to the OP.
>
>> Our vehemently anti-Marxist teabagger is too doggie poopie stoopid to
>> realise the passage attributed to Marx was taken from the Federalist
>> #10 by James Madison.

SO you lied and think that means something, other than you are a liar?

Federalist papers never made it into the Constitution…. maybe they
were too complicated for what they were supposed to do?

Maybe Marx read Federalist #10.

When ever you post “ s&*$?%t” I’ll call it s&*$?%t, where ever it comes from,
do you have some George Washington that’s crazy s&*$?%t. I imagine George
wrote something that was poorly written and a tangled up bunch of s&*$?%t.

Post the Communist Manifesto…. lets see how much is s&*$?%t.

Why don’t the Progressives *re…

admin — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:53:19 +0000

On 10/5/2010 2:03 PM, @&*$?%void.nul">no_one @&*$?%void.nul wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:28:24 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
> @&*$?%Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/4/2010 12:02 AM, Ed Musgrave wrote:
>>> Karl Marx wanted to get rid of government. To him the government merely
>>> managed the affairs of the capitalists.He was very perceptive in seeing
>>> how the so called free market works with no intervention.
>>
>> Somalia is Communist/Marxist and it is following Marx’s plan, they have
>> no government, just collectives they call Warlords that control all the
>> money and needs and distribution of wealth in each collective.
>>
>>
>> *So far it looks good for the Marx plan*
>
> And each warlord says who lives and who dies! Not a Marxist paradise,
> is it?

Well yeah, that is the Marxist dream, kill the people that are not
contributing enough to the collective. Marxists love to be able to kill
the people they deem as no longer useful to their collective.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

admin — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:14:03 +0000

On 10/2/2010 9:35 PM, Ron Peterson wrote:
> On Oct 2, 1:01 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty > Everyth…@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>
>> What was it Einstein said;
>
>> “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more
>> violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move
>> in the opposite direction.”
>
>> “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
>
> Einstein was talking about scientific theories which should explain
> all observations, but not introduce additional complexity in that
> model of reality.
>

“Everything”

“Any”

First you say Einstein is a socialist, then you say it only applies to
science?

You are grasping at straws.

Why don’t the Progressives *re…

admin — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:28:24 +0000

On 10/4/2010 12:02 AM, Ed Musgrave wrote:
> Karl Marx wanted to get rid of government. To him the government merely
> managed the affairs of the capitalists.He was very perceptive in seeing
> how the so called free market works with no intervention.

Somalia is Communist/Marxist and it is following Marx’s plan, they have
no government, just collectives they call Warlords that control all the
money and needs and distribution of wealth in each collective.

*So far it looks good for the Marx plan*

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

admin — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 03:29:40 +0000

On 10/3/2010 5:52 PM, Immortalista wrote:
> On Oct 2, 9:32 am, Beam Me Up Scotty > Everyth…@Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2010 10:08 PM, Ed Musgrave wrote:
>>
>>> I doubt if anybody in the White House is very deep in philosphy. Marx
>>> said a lot of things about the primitive capitalist economy. Not much he
>>> said really applies to today.
>>
>> It is funny how the Constitution is an outdated idea that needs
>> Progressive thinking, but the Socialists will quote Marx and tell us how
>> “we” are wrong according to an out-dated old communist/Marxist has-been.
>>
>> For some reason the Communist Manifesto isn’t in need of revision
>> according to the Leftist-Socialist.
>>
>> Why don’t the Progressives *rewrite the Communist Manifesto* and leave
>> my U.S. Constitution alone.
>
> Why? Isn’t it a prefect commentary and critique of the British
> Industrial Revolution and the emergence of the Industrial City?

It has been a total failure everywhere it was ever used.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

admin — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:30:51 +0000

“Everything”

“Any”

OutSourcedNews-Group » Progressives

*YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU* ?

Socialism and Mafia combined to create Progressivism…. Democrats seem to have accepted the Progressive Mafia as their ruling elite.

Obama will try to direct this tax offset to the rich, what that will do is get more of the *working man* Average Joe’s fired

*YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU* ?

Progressives found out with Prohibition, that hiding things in thousands of pages of laws and court minutia would make it harder to unwind their twisted web of lies and deceit.

would you save the life of someone if you were put in a position to require you risk your life,

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

The Federal government has NO Socialist power… That’s OK we all Know you Progressives are the Village Idiots.

That would leave only the Federal Government that congress pays the welfare and pays the bills for, doesn’t it?

People would do well to treat Progressives as the mentally deficient village idiots that they are.

Nobody Understands Debt, particularly right-wing trolls..Liberalsthinkall money is free.

Paradox, if they don’t make the loans they are RACISTS and if they do make the loans you say the loans were committing fraud.

On the Intellectual Inferiority of Liberalism

Making it legal but frustratingly impossible, then you can’t complain about a loss of freedom, but the hoops are not worth the gains. Like they are doing with Firearms.

*If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER* ….Obama would have already fixed everything

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

Obama’s 11% UNEMPLOYMENT RATE compared ot Bush’s 4.4 %

“The US is driving the world to a nuclear war” < < < GO NWO!!!

Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly incorrect

“States Rights” divides America and makes us weak. >>> What a lie this is.>>>>You Progressives aren’t very Progressive are you?

“States Rights” divides America and makes us weak. >>> What a lie this is.>>>>You Progressives aren’t very Progressive are you?

Cuba Has Lower Infant Mortality >> YET NO SOCIALIST MOVIE STARS GO TO CUBA TO HAVE THEIR BABIES???? WHY

“The US is driving the world to a nuclear war” < < < GO NWO!!!

Keynesian predictions have been spectacularly correct

If BIGGER and more intrusive government were so much better then NORTH KOREA and even Prisons everywhere would be paradise.

Do you Socialists have any solution that doesn’t include killing human life?

jet polluters turn republican ?

Texas Motorist Protection Act

The Ron Paul Anti-Racist Encyclopedia

You’re like a NERD claiming to be a cool kid…. it just isn’t a believable lie.

Who voted to allow Obamacare to come up to a vote

Ranks #1 Most Charitable Nation In The World – Contrary to what Progressives would like you to believe

Obama’s hero Hugo Chavez Bitch Slaps Obama’s Baboon ears off his Fugly face

‘It Doesn’t Get Much Better than This’

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

ACLU On Obama’s Plan To Detain American Citizens INDEFINITELY With No Trial

New Gingrich book on climate change likely coming after the election (Al Gore is jealous)

Gingrich Baggage It will cost him the primary.

Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves so media wouldn’t report on being thieves each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?

Congress voted automatic pay increases for them selves so media wouldn’t report on being thieves each year and now John Kerry and the hag want a tax increase?

“Progressive” progress

“Progressive” progress

Rand Paul says green ‘radicals’ have taken over Obama’s policies

Rand Paul says green ‘radicals’ have taken over Obama’s policies

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

Greedy Bank of America faces outrage over debit card charge (Blame the ‘rats, including Obama)

Soros’ Very General Way of Predicting Economic / Financial Failures

Doesn’t this mean that even Progressives think Progressives are assholes?

He is a socialist and a communist

U.S. Credit Rating a Victim of GOP Sabotage

When it comes down to it, the TEA PARTY is the anti-Progressive PARTY.

Are you complaining that Republicans are NOT nearly as good at destroying the Nation as Democrats

“Progressives”

Government jobs are the NEW WELFARE

The Dumbest Idea I’ve Heard This Week!” <>

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

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

Anchor babies are 100% legal

Marginalizing the Tea Party .. Again

For some queer reason Progressives think people are as dumb as Cass Sunstein.

Join the Christian Coalition’s Campaign to Stop Taxpayer Funding for Abortion

Why we need an Alternative Minimum Tax for G.E. = ‘GE’ A “Bad” Corporate Citizen !

National debt 14.2 trillion and increasing at over 4 billion a day!

Tea Party Cleans up the Shit & Feces the ObamaUnion Thugs Left Splattered in the Wisconsin capitol Building

The Real Bad Nasty Nuke “Stuff” -or- The Relatively Not As Bad Clean Coal “Stuff”

Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism

Socialists want to have their BOOT HEEL on the throat of Capitalism

TSA Proposal > > > Body-Scan Pedestrians, Train Passengers

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

Underemployment SURGES to 19.9% in Feb from 18.9% in January -OR- in “Liberalish” the language of the Leftists, this is moving forward.

Rasmussen Poll Says 87% Of Republicans / Tea Partyists Support Ghaddafi’s Brutal Crackdown On AntiGovernment Leftist Progressives

does Harry Reid want to also ban GAY sex,since it is worse for America than Prostitution could ever be?

Reid wants to ban whorehouses

Federal judge strikes down Obamacare

The mindless Democrats

typical Liberal double talk where Liberal-Progressives place themselves above the laws.

YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU ?

Obama will try to direct this tax offset to the rich, what that will do is get more of the working man Average Joe’s fired

YOU REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL CONCEPT DO YOU ?

If BIGGER GOVERNMENT WERE THE ANSWER ….Obama would have already fixed everything

your unalienable rights are NOT endowed by GOVERNMENT

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.

Why don’t the Progressives rewrite the Communist Manifesto and leave my Constitution alone.