OutSourcedNews-Group » social

Negro has 30 kids with 11 women, Knoxville. TN

admin — Sun, 20 May 2012 18:31:47 +0000

On 5/20/2012 1:51 PM, Lookout wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 08:26:54 -0700 (PDT), “Criminal Drivers Murder
> 35,000 Americans a Year” wrote:
>
>> Blacks are a plague just like all minorities. All they do is breed
>> and commit crimes. Thanks to the internet ppl are finding out the
>> truth.
>>
>
> Now let’s here that argument that conservatives are not more
> prejudiced than liberals.
>
> Go ahead..we’re listening…..

Isn’t that a Margret Sanger quote, she was a well known
Liberal-Socialist who was famous for her position on eugenics…. It
is reminiscent of what she wrote and believed. Maybe why she was pro
abortion which was later given the euphemism of pro choice to make the
killing more palatable to the weak minded.

["Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of the
legalization of abortion, based primarily upon her racial views and
support of eugenics, "]

["became involved with local intellectuals, artists, and activists,
including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge, and Emma Goldman.[12]
Starting in 1911 she started writing a series of articles about sexual
hygiene entitled “What Every Mother Should Know” and “What Every Girl
Should Know” *for the socialist magazine* New York Call.[note 2][14]“]

["As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common
cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to
"assist *the race* toward the elimination of the unfit."[72] Sanger was
a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary
traits through *social intervention* by reducing reproduction *by those
considered unfit*. Sanger’s eugenic policies included an *exclusionary
immigration* policy, free access to birth control methods and full
family planning autonomy *for the*
*able-minded*, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the
profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization,
*she advocated coercion* to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from
procreating.[75]“]

[" *Sanger believed that lighter skinned races were superior* to
darker-skinned races....[83] Her contemporaries in the African-American
community supported her efforts. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black
social worker and leader of New York‘s Urban League, asked Sanger to
open a clinic in Harlem.[84] Sanger secured funding from the Julius
Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with African-American
doctors, in 1930. “]

["] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in
leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the
benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble “we
do *not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro*
population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea
if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” “]

NOW WHY WOULD IT EVER OCCUR TO BLACKS THAT A EUGENICS NUT WOULD WANT TO
ELIMINATE INFERIOR HUMAN RACES…. CERTAINLY HITLER NEVER MADE PEOPLE
THINK THAT WAS WHAT HE WANTED.

Do we need to stop all carbon pollution in the atmosphere… Be careful what GOVERNMENT POWERS you wish for, you just, might get them.

admin — Sun, 20 May 2012 02:50:06 +0000

On 5/19/2012 3:42 PM, James Hutchinson wrote:
>
>
> “Gray Guest” wrote in message
> news:XnsA0589D3CD81B7Wereofftoseethewizrd @&*$?%88.198.244.100…
>
> “Mr.Sandman” wrote in news:TKRtr.27424
> $8L6.27285 @&*$?%newsfe07.iad:
>
>> On 5/19/2012 7:48 AM, walt tonne wrote:
>>> (A rational society would not tolerate nor pay for the subhumans
>>> produced by the groid daddy)(Mothers of such sprogs should be
>>> neutered. Same for the kids)
>>
>> I hate to enlighten you, but this “groid daddy” may just be a natural
> man.
>> He is doing what males were originally programmed to do—-to hump as
>> many females as they can.
>> Have you ever spent some time on a farm?
>> You, on the other hand, by the looks of it, is an unhappy, neurotic,
>> violent, demented pervert who is frightened and resentful of people who
>> are different from you.
>>
>
> The point of civilizaton was to control those base urges for the bettment
> of the social group.
>
> < ^^^^
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The POINT of “male kind” is to f&*$?%k willing females.
> Just like on the farm.

Are you a HOMOPHOBIC who hates man on man sex and marriage?

This is a dark day indeed.

This unnatural human pollution of the planet with male on male sex
should be banned by the EPA as environmentally damaging pollution to the
Natural process of the planet.

If CO2 can be atmospheric pollution then humans are also carbon living
in the atmosphere and can be pollution, and as such are subject to EPA
regulations and one source of pollution is within the Naturally
occurring humans themselves, it is a byproduct and is the unnatural
occurring human pollution that are being produced by humans. They are
gay humans. Unnatural because they don’t reproduce as nature requires
for life.

We fill the atmosphere with more millions of tons of human carbon that
does not belong here…. Just like the CO2 that we also “fill the
atmosphere with” and Liberals say this CO2 doesn’t belong there. Nature
didn’t release it. But then nature didn’t release the g&*$?%s into the
atmosphere either, humans did it. Humans did both and we have to stop
humans pollution of the atmosphere, and how can we stop both of these
kinds of pollution?

Do we need to stop all carbon pollution in the atmosphere?

When Liberals seek to ignore our RIGHTS and REGULATE what they have no
constitutional power to regulate, how long will it take until these
extremes are used to attack each other? It happens very often as we
humans use government regulation to overstep their authority and kill
millions of others like Jews and Christians and Chinese peasants.

*Be careful what GOVERNMENT POWERS you wish for, you just*
*might get them*.

This unnatural pollution of the planet with male on male sex should be banned by the EPA as environmentally damaging to the Natural process of the planet.

admin — Sun, 20 May 2012 01:26:22 +0000

Are you a HOMOPHOBIC who hates man on man sex and marriage?

This is a dark day indeed.

If Males are meant to impregnate females then G&*$?%s are NOT fulfilling
their Naturally intended function on this planet, Much like burning oil
is releasing unnatural CO2 into the atmosphere. This unnatural
pollution of the planet with male on male sex should be banned by the
EPA as environmentally damaging to the Natural process of the planet.

11 Quotes That Show How Worried The Financial World Is About Europe Right Now

admin — Wed, 09 May 2012 16:20:35 +0000

[...
The recent elections in France and in Greece have thrown the global
financial system into an uproar. Fear and worry are everywhere and
nobody is quite sure what is going to happen next. All of the financial
deals that Greece has made over the past few years may be null and void.
Nobody is going to know for sure until a new government is formed, and
at this point it looks like that is not going to happen and that there
will need to be new elections in June. All of the financial deals that
France has made over the past few years may be null and void as well.
New French President Francois Hollande seems determined to take France
on a path away from austerity. But can France really afford to keep
spending money that it does not have? France has already lost its AAA
credit rating and French bond yields have started to move up toward
dangerous territory. And Greek politicians are delusional if they think
they have any other choice other than austerity. Without European
bailout money (which they won't get if they don't honor their current
agreements), nobody is going to want to lend Greece a dime.

And all of this talk about "austerity" is kind of silly anyway. It
isn't as if either France or Greece was going to have a balanced budget
any time soon. Both nations were still running up huge amounts of debt
even under the "austerity" budgets.

But the citizens of both nations have sent a clear message that they are
not going to tolerate even a slowdown in government spending. They want
to go back to the debt-fueled prosperity of the last several decades,
even if it makes their long-term financial problems a lot worse.

Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, Greece does not have that option.
Without the bailout money that they are scheduled to get, Greece does
not have a prayer of avoiding a disorderly default. Private investors
would have to be insane to lend Greece money if the bailout deal falls
apart. Greece desperately needs the help of the EU, the ECB and the IMF
and the only way they are going to get it is if they abide by the terms
of the agreements that have already been reached.

The only way that Greece can avoid austerity at this point would be to
leave the euro. Nobody would want to lend money to Greece under that
scenario either, but Greece could choose to print huge amounts of their
own national currency if they wanted to.

The situation is different in France. Investors are still willing to
lend to France at reasonable interest rates, but if France chooses to
run up huge amounts of additional debt at some point they will end up
just like Greece.

What is even more important in the short-term is the crumbling of the
French/German alliance on European fiscal matters. Angela Merkel and
Nicolas Sarkozy were a united front, but now Merkel and Hollande are
likely to have conflict after conflict.

Instead of moving in one clear direction, the eurozone is now fractured
and tensions are rising.

So what comes next?

Well, investors are not certain what comes next and that has many of
them deeply concerned.

The following are 11 quotes that show how worried the financial world is
about Europe right now....

#1 Tres Knippa of Kenai Capital Management: "What is going on in Europe
is an absolute disaster…the risk-on trade is not the place to be. I want
to be out of equities and very, very defensive because the situation in
Europe just got worse after those elections."

#2 Mark McCormick, currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman:
"We’re going to have higher tensions, more uncertainty and most likely a
weaker euro."

#3 Nick Stamenkovic, investment strategist at RIA Capital Markets in
Edinburgh: "Investors are questioning whether Greece will be a part of
the single currency at the end of this year."

#4 Jörg Asmussen, a European Central Bank executive board member:
"Greece needs to be aware that there is no alternative to the agreed
reform program if it wants to remain a member of the eurozone"

#5 Tristan Cooper, sovereign debt analyst at Fidelity Worldwide
Investment: "A Greek eurozone exit is on the cards although the
probability and timing of such an event is uncertain."

#6 Art Cashin: "Here’s the outlook on Greece from Wall Street watering
holes. If a coalition government is formed or looks to be formed, global
markets may rally. Any coalition is unlikely to make progress on goals,
since austerity is political suicide. There will likely be another
election around June 10/17. A workable majority/plurality remains
unlikely, so back to square one. Therefore, Greece will be unable to
attain goals by the deadline (June 30). Lacking aid funds, pensions are
suspended and government workers are laid off. Protestors take to the
streets and government is forced to revert to drachma to avoid social
chaos. Pass the peanuts, please."

#7 John Noonan, Senior Forex Analyst with Thomson Reuters in Sydney:
"Sentiment is very bearish, The euro is under a lot of pressure right
now. I get the feeling that it’s going to be a nasty move lower for the
euro finally"

#8 Kenneth S. Rogoff, a professor of economics at Harvard: "A Greek exit
would underscore that there’s no realistic long-term plan for Europe,
and it would lead to a chaotic endgame for the rest of the euro zone."

#9 Chris Tinker of Libra Investment Services: "It’s a binary decision.
If Greece gets itself to the point where the European administration
says, ‘We can’t play this game anymore,’ that starts a domino effect"

#10 Nicolas Véron, a senior fellow at Bruegel: "France has very limited
fiscal space and actually has to engage in fiscal consolidation"

#11 80-year-old Greek citizen Panagiota Makri: "I'm confused. I feel
numb and confused. Only God can save us now"

All of this comes at a time when much of Europe is already descending
into a new recession. Economies all over Europe are contracting and
unemployment rates are skyrocketing. Until things start improving,
there is going to continue to be a lot of civil unrest across Europe.

Meanwhile, things are not so great in the United States either.

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon claims that the U.S. economy is holding a
"royal straight flush", but the only part of that he got right was the
"flush" part.

There are 100 million working age Americans that do not have jobs, the
middle class continues to shrink, the rising cost of food and the rising
cost of gas are severely stretching the budgets of millions of American
families and the federal government continues to run up gigantic amounts
of debt.

When Europe descends into financial chaos, the United States is not
going to escape it. The financial crisis of 2008 deeply affected the
entire globe, and so will the next great financial crisis.

Let us hope that we still have a little bit more time before the next
great financial crisis strikes, but things in Europe are rapidly
unraveling and at some point the dominoes are going to begin to fall.
...]

Spend your time in sensitivity training and get some multicultural counseling.

admin — Mon, 07 May 2012 00:40:19 +0000

On 5/6/2012 7:09 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>>>>> Johnson takes Libertarian nod, slams GOP over Grenell
>>
>>>>>> By MAGGIE HABERMAN |
>>>>>> 5/5/12 5:30 PM EDT
>>
>>>>>> Gary Johnson formally became the Libertarian nominee for president
>>>>>> earlier today at the party’s Las Vegas convention – and promptly
>>>>>> dinged the GOP, the party he was running for part of last year,
>>>>>> for the criticism from Christian conservatives over Mitt Romney‘s
>>>>>> hiring of Richard Grenell, via Rosie Gray:
>>
>>>>>> “I believe the majority of americans are fiscally responsible and
>>>>>> socially tolerant,” Johnson told BuzzFeed in a phone interview. “I
>>>>>> believe the majority of Americans could care less about whether or
>>>>>> not there is a gay individual working in the Romney campaign.”
>>>>>> Romney’s newly hired foreign policy spokesman Richard Grenell was
>>>>>> openly gay, a fact that raised the ire of social conservatives,
>>>>>> whose reaction resulted in Grenell’s leaving the campaign.
>>
>>>>>> “It speaks volumes to the intolerance that continues to be present
>>>>>> in the Republican Party,” Johnson said. He said he doesn’t attach
>>>>>> that intolerance to the majority of Republicans but to “the
>>>>>> activists driving that agenda.”
>>
>>>>>> “That intolerance is why the world vilifies Republicans,” Johnson
>>>>>> continued. “It’s why I have never worn a Republican t-shirt in my
>>>>>> life. There is a certain Republican dogma I just cannot defend.
>>>>>> Homophobia is one of those issues.”
>>
>>>>>> Romney’s campaign, according to multiple sources, urged Grenell to
>>>>>> stay in a string of phone calls from top advisers within and
>>>>>> outside its Boston headquarters. As Gray notes, they knew he was
>>>>>> gay when he was brought on, and have said the complaints from a
>>>>>> handful of evangelical figures did not impact them at all.
>>
>>>>>> But the flap has continued to make headlines, with Romneyland
>>>>>> getting heat for not calling out the people who issued such
>>>>>> complaints before Grenell left, and with friends of Grenell
>>>>>> criticizing the campaign.
>>
>>>>> Grennell resign, Grennell was gay and your conclusion He was fired
>>>>> a
>>> nd
>>>>> there is a vast conspiracy to cover it up And even if at some point
>>>>> the whole story comes out and proves you wrong you still be going
>>>>> on about for the next twelve months
>>>>> I’ll bet you run around you nieghborhoor in your tin foil hat
>>>>> looking for deadhorses to beat.
>>
>>>> My issue in this post has nothing to with Grenell….although
>>>> Romney’s action IS an issue.
>>
>>>> I was trying to point out the existing splits in the right wing
>>>> factions
>>> of
>>>> American politics.
>>
>>>> 1. The anti- G&*$?%s
>>>> 2. The Tea Party
>>>> 3. Libertarians
>>>> 4. The “Romney isn’t conservative enough to win faction” Limbo
>>>> faction. 5. Evangelicals
>>
>>>> Plus perhaps a few others that I’ve overlooked.
>>
>>> The biggest one of all falls under #3 Libertarian above:
>>
>>> Repugs who don’t want Ron Paul to give an anti-jingoism speech at the
>>> convention.
>>
>>> Bret Cahill
>>
>> YOU GUYS seriously need to get some anger and management counseling
>
> As any disinterested 3rd party could guess from the context as well as
> the chortling of the Dems here, you’re projecting again.
>
> Instead of listening to Rush Sean and other hate broadcasting [empty
> intellectual calories] get some exercise and maybe you won’t hate
> yourself to an early death.
>
> In the morning the sum of my systolic + rest pulse rate is often less
> than 140 sometimes less than 130 and hardly ever over 150.
>
> Compare that with the typical obese hate filled bigot teabagger who
> spends the entire day stuffing chips into his mouth and spewing bile.
>

So it’s your contention that stuffing chips and spewing is NOT as
fulfilling as what you do? You have better answers to the meaning of
life than any of the rest of us…?

You picture every last American living to your standards?

NOT very multicultural of you and NOT very sensitive of you… Might I
suggest that while everyone else attends anger management, you spend
your time in sensitivity training and get some multicultural counseling
to bring you up to speed…..

The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch – the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families

admin — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:22:08 +0000

On 4/30/2012 4:02 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Bret Cahill” wrote in message
> news:6f90b317-66ec-4693-9ead-8db5a8cbbe8d @&*$?%t23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com…
>>> > > April 29, 2012
>>>
>>> > > Wasting Our Minds
>>>
>>> > > By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>>
>>> > > In Spain, the unemployment rate among workers under 25 is more
>>> than > > 50
>>> > > percent. In Ireland almost a third of the young are unemployed.
>>> Here > > in
>>> > > America, youth unemployment is “only” 16.5 percent, which is still
>>> > > terrible – but things could be worse.
>>> > > And sure enough, many politicians are doing all they can to
>>> guarantee > > that
>>> > > things will, in fact, get worse. We’ve been hearing a lot about
>>> the > > war on
>>> > > women, which is real enough. But there’s also a war on the young,
>>> > > which is
>>> > > just as real even if it’s better disguised. And it’s doing
>>> immense > > harm, not
>>> > > just to the young, but to the nation’s future.
>>>
>>> > > Let’s start with some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students
>>> > > during an
>>> > > appearance last week. After denouncing President Obama’s > >
>>> “divisiveness,” the
>>> > > candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a
>>> risk, > > get the
>>> > > education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a
>>> > > business.”
>>>
>>> > > The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch -
>>> the
>>> > > distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent
>>> > > families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their
>>> > > ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.
>>> > > I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at
>>> public > > colleges
>>> > > and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions
>>> in > > state
>>> > > aid. Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is,
>>> > > however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would
>>> > > drastically
>>> > > cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to
>>> lose > > their
>>> > > Pell grants.
>>>
>>> > > So how, exactly, are young people from cash-strapped families > >
>>> supposed to
>>> > > “get the education”? Back in March Mr. Romney had the answer:
>>> Find > > the
>>> > > college “that has a little lower price where you can get a good >
>>> > education.”
>>> > > Good luck with that. But I guess it’s divisive to point out that
>>> Mr. > > Romney’s
>>> > > prescriptions are useless for Americans who weren’t born with his
>>> > > advantages.
>>> > > There is, however, a larger issue: even if students do manage, >
>>> > somehow, to
>>> > > “get the education,” which they do all too often by incurring a
>>> lot > > of debt,
>>> > > they’ll be graduating into an economy that doesn’t seem to want
>>> them.
>>>
>>> > > You’ve probably heard lots about how workers with college degrees
>>> are > > faring
>>> > > better in this slump than those with only a high school
>>> education, > > which is
>>> > > true. But the story is far less encouraging if you focus not on >
>>> > middle-aged
>>> > > Americans with degrees but on recent graduates. Unemployment
>>> among > > recent
>>> > > graduates has soared; so has part-time work, presumably
>>> reflecting > > the
>>> > > inability of graduates to find full-time jobs. Perhaps most telling,
>>> > > earnings have plunged even among those graduates working full
>>> time – > > a sign
>>> > > that many have been forced to take jobs that make no use of their
>>> > > education.
>>>
>>> > > College graduates, then, are taking it on the chin thanks to the
>>> weak
>>> > > economy. And research tells us that the price isn’t temporary: >
>>> > students who
>>> > > graduate into a bad economy never recover the lost ground.
>>> Instead, > > their
>>> > > earnings are depressed for life.
>>> > > What the young need most of all, then, is a better job market.
>>> People > > like
>>> > > Mr. Romney claim that they have the recipe for job creation:
>>> slash > > taxes on
>>> > > corporations and the rich, slash spending on public services and
>>> the > > poor.
>>> > > But we now have plenty of evidence on how these policies actually
>>> > > work in a
>>> > > depressed economy – and they clearly destroy jobs rather than
>>> create > > them.
>>>
>>> > > For as you look at the economic devastation in Europe, you should
>>> > > bear in
>>> > > mind that some of the countries experiencing the worst
>>> devastation > > have been
>>> > > doing everything American conservatives say we should do here.
>>> Not > > long ago,
>>> > > conservatives gushed over Ireland‘s economic policies, especially
>>> its > > low
>>> > > corporate tax rate; the Heritage Foundation used to give it
>>> higher > > marks for
>>> > > “economic freedom” than any other Western nation. When things
>>> went > > bad,
>>> > > Ireland once again received lavish praise, this time for its
>>> harsh > > spending
>>> > > cuts, which were supposed to inspire confidence and lead to quick
>>> > > recovery.
>>>
>>> > > And now, as I said, almost a third of Ireland‘s young can’t find
>>> > > jobs.
>>>
>>> > > What should we do to help America’s young?
>>>
>>> > > Basically, the opposite of what Mr. Romney and his friends want.
>>> We > > should
>>> > > be expanding student aid, not slashing it. And we should reverse
>>> the > > de
>>> > > facto austerity policies that are holding back the U.S. economy -
>>> the
>>> > > unprecedented cutbacks at the state and local level, which have
>>> been > > hitting
>>> > > education especially hard.
>>>
>>> > > Yes, such a policy reversal would cost money. But refusing to
>>> spend > > that
>>> > > money is foolish and shortsighted even in purely fiscal terms. >
>>> > Remember, the
>>> > > young aren’t just America’s future; they’re the future of the tax
>>> > > base, too.
>>> > > A mind is a terrible thing to waste; wasting the minds of a whole
>>> > > generation
>>> > > is even more terrible. Let’s stop doing it.
>>>
>>> > > –
>>> > > Ziggy’s law, “For every complicated problem there’s usually a simple
>>> > > solution and its always wrong!”
>>>
>>> > I will admit that telling students to borrow money from their parents
>>> > was a pretty dumb comment, but at least he is encouraging them to
>>> > become entrepreneurs.
>>>
>>> > Compare Romney’s comment to a commencement speech[1] made by
>>> > government employee Janet [US is great because of Government]
>>> > Napolitano:
>>>
>>> > “HEADING A MASSIVE GOVERNMENT AGENCY”
>>> > “STRONG INTEREST IN COMMUNITY SERVICE”
>>> > “IN PUBLIC SERVICE”
>>> > “GIVE THOUGHT TO … SERVE THE COMMON GOOD.”
>>> > “GIVING BACK TO THEIR COMMUNITIES.”
>>> > “TO VOLUNTEER”
>>> > “NEED YOU IN GOVERNMENT ITSELF.”
>>> > “INVOLVED IN POLICYMAKING”
>>> > “SEE PUBLIC SERVICE AS A COMMON, EVEN STANDARD, PART OF ANY CAREER
>>> > PATH…”
>>> > “WORK INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT”
>>> > “HELP SOLVE OUR SOCIETY’S PRESSING PROBLEMS”
>>> > “SPEND A FEW YEARS OF YOUR ADULT LIVES IN GOVERNMENT”
>>> > “…TO A PUBLIC CHALLENGE.”
>>> > “OF PUBLIC SERVICE WE ARE TRYING TO PROMOTE”
>>> > “SPENDING SOME TIME IN GOVERNMENT”
>>> > “IN PUBLIC SERVICE,”
>>> > “APPLY IT TO THE COMMUNITY”
>>> > “TO THE COMMON GOOD”
>>>
>>> > Citations:
>>> > 1. Janet Napolitano, May 9, 2011
>>>
>>> Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy:George
>>> Washington was also apparently fine with government mandates:he
>>> signed
>>> into law the 1792 Militia Act which required young men to outfit
>>> themselves with a musket/knapsack/in some cases a serviceable
>>> horsehttp://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-supreme-court-overturn-o…
>>>
>>> Founding Fathers Would Approve of National Healthcare Policy ?The
>>> Constitution gives the federal government the power to enact ?national
>>> solutions to national problems ?By Elizabeth B. Wydra ? Chief Counsel
>>> for the Constitutional Accountability Center
>>> Elizabeth Wydra is chief counsel for the Constitutional
>>> Accountability ?Center, a think tank, law firm, and action center
>>> dedicated to ?fulfilling the Constitution‘s… ?Read more ?Our
>>> Constitution‘s text and history demonstrate that the national
>>> healthcare crisis—in which tens of millions of Americans lack access
>>> to quality, affordable care—is the sort of national problem that the
>>> framers of our founding charter wanted the federal government to have
>>> the power to solve. ?Our Constitution was drafted in 1787 “in Order to
>>> form a more perfect ?Union”—both more perfect than the British tyranny
>>> against which the ?Founding generation had revolted and more perfect
>>> than the flawed ?Articles of Confederation under which Americans had
>>> lived for a decade ?since declaring independence. George Washington
>>> and the other ?delegates to the Constitutional Convention shared a
>>> conviction that ?the Constitution must establish a national government
>>> of substantial ?power, in contrast to the extremely weak central
>>> government of the ?Articles, which was so dysfunctional that
>>> Washington thought it nearly ?cost us victory in the Revolutionary
>>> War. (George Washington was also ?apparently fine with government
>>> mandates—he signed into law the 1792 ?Militia Act, which required
>>> young men to outfit themselves with a ?musket, knapsack, and, in some
>>> cases, a serviceable horse.)
>>> Under our enduring Constitution, Congress has the express
>>> constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce—the
>>> healthcare industry comprises nearly 20 percent of our nation’s
>>> economy ?—and tax and spend for the general welfare, as well as the
>>> broad power ?to pass laws that help execute these specific grants of
>>> authority. ?Given the Constitution‘s grant of significant authority to
>>> the federal ?government to act in the interests of the country as a
>>> whole, it is no ?surprise that a majority of the lower court judges
>>> who have ruled on ?the healthcare law have upheld it, including
>>> prominent conservative ?judges. Reagan-appointee Judge Laurence
>>> Silberman on the D.C. federal ?appeals court explained that the
>>> attacks on the law have no support ?”in either the text of the
>>> Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.” ?Another conservative
>>> appeals court judge, Jeffrey S. Sutton—who ?clerked for Supreme Court
>>> Justice Antonin Scalia—explained that ?whether you think the law is
>>> good policy or not, it clearly passes ?constitutional muster. ?If the
>>> Supreme Court Justices are faithful to the Constitution‘s text ?and
>>> history, principles of federalism, and precedent—including ?decisions
>>> authored or joined by some of the current conservative ?Justices—the
>>> Court should conclude the healthcare law is ?constitutional.
>>> SNICKER:)))))))))))))))))))
>>> here is another SNICKER moment:)))))
>>> the Constitution created a robust central authority:stating in the
>>> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government to promote the
>>> general Welfare:The document also granted the federal government
>>> broad ?domestic powers including authority to regulate interstate
>>> commerce, ?the so-called Commerce
>>> Clausehttp://truth-out.org/news/item/8080-did-the-founders-hate-government?
>>>
>>> Did the Founders Hate Government? ?Saturday, 24 March 2012 13:14 By
>>> Robert Parry, Consortium News | News ?Analysis
>>> Orwell’s insight – that who controls the present controls the past,
>>> and who controls the past controls the future – could apply to the
>>> American political debate in which the Right has built a false
>>> narrative that enlists the Framers of the Constitution as enemies of
>>> a ?strong central government, writes Robert Parry. ?In the coming
>>> months – with a new fight over the federal budget, the ?Supreme
>>> Court’s review of health-care reform and the November ?elections – the
>>> battle in the United States will pit not just ?political parties and
>>> economic ideologies against one another – but ?competing national
>>> narratives of how and why the United States was ?founded. ?Indeed, it
>>> is that conflict over the American narrative that may well ?determine
>>> the outcome of the presidential election and the future ?direction of
>>> the United States. Yet, this dispute over the Founders’ ?vision is
>>> rarely debated in the mainstream news media. ?The argument does,
>>> however, inspire right-wing groups which obsess ?over “strict
>>> construction” of the Constitution and the “originalist” ?intent of the
>>> Founders. Such references also have become standard fare ?on the
>>> Republican campaign trail with the four remaining major ?candidates
>>> claiming to be in this fight to defend American “liberty.” ?On
>>> Saturday, for instance, ex-Sen. Rick Santorum declared that ?President
>>> Barack Obama’s health-care reform is “a threat to the very ?essence of
>>> who America is.” As the New York Times noted, “numbers like ?1776 and
>>> 1860 increasingly pepper his speeches as he stresses the ?historical
>>> urgency of his candidacy.” ?The Right’s historical narrative holds
>>> that the Founders designed the ?United States to have a weak central
>>> government barred from ?confronting most domestic problems (though
>>> with broad powers for ?defense). Under this “free-market” system,
>>> wealthy business interests ?had the “liberty” to set their own rules
>>> and the average citizen had ?the “freedom” to make his way the best he
>>> could. ?There is, of course, a counter-narrative, but Democrats and
>>> progressives rarely make it, preferring to cede the history to the
>>> Right and to argue that the Founders couldn’t possibly have
>>> anticipated the complex problems of the modern age. ?Still, the
>>> counter-narrative to the GOP mythology is grounded in solid ?history.
>>> Indeed, the evidence is that most constitutional framers were
>>> pragmatic men interested in building a strong nation. They also were
>>> fed up with the weak central government under the Articles of
>>> Confederation. They surely weren’t anti-government ideologues. ?In the
>>> Constitution, they created a robust central authority, stating ?in the
>>> preamble the explicit responsibility of the government “to ?promote
>>> the general Welfare.” The document also granted the federal
>>> government broad domestic powers, including authority to regulate
>>> interstate commerce, the so-called Commerce Clause. ?Framing the
>>> Commerce Clause ?Plus, the Commerce Clause was not some afterthought
>>> at the ?Constitutional Convention in 1787. It was presented as one of
>>> the new ?federal powers in James Madison’s Virginia plan on the first
>>> day of ?substantive debate. It also was considered one of the least
>>> controversial features of the new governing framework. ?Indeed,
>>> constitutional architect Madison had been maneuvering to give ?this
>>> power to the federal government for years, seeking such a change ?in
>>> the Articles of Confederation, which governed the United States ?from
>>> 1777 to 1787. ?Madison “sponsored a resolution instructing Virginia
>>> congressmen to ?vote to give the federal government the authority to
>>> regulate commerce ?for twenty-five years,” noted Chris DeRose in
>>> Founding Rivals, a ?resolution that won the support of Gen. George
>>> Washington, one of the ?fiercest critics of the weak central
>>> government in the Articles of ?Confederation. ?Because the Articles’
>>> structure of 13 “independent” and “sovereign” ?states had left
>>> Washington’s soldiers starving and desperate – when ?the states
>>> reneged on promised funding – Washington advocated a much ?stronger
>>> central government. ?Regarding Madison’s commerce idea, Washington
>>> wrote that “the ?proposition in my opinion is so self evident that I
>>> confess I am at a ?loss to discover wherein lies the weight of the
>>> objection to the ?measure. We are either a united people, or we are
>>> not. If the former, ?let us, in all matters of a general concern act
>>> as a nation, which ?have national objects to promote, and a national
>>> character to support. ?If we are not, let us no longer act a farce by
>>> pretending it to be.” ?When the Virginia legislature slashed Madison’s
>>> proposal for federal ?control of commerce from 25 years to 13 years,
>>> he voted against it as ?insufficient. His thoughts then turned to a
>>> more drastic scheme for ?consolidating power in the hands of the
>>> federal government, a ?constitutional convention, albeit under the
>>> guise of simply proposing ?some changes to the Articles. ?A Dramatic
>>> Change ?In spring 1787 – with a convention called in Philadelphia to
>>> amend the ?Articles of Confederation – Madison unveiled his radical
>>> alternative, ?not simply some modifications to the Articles but an
>>> entirely new ?system that wiped away the Articles’ language about the
>>> “independence” ?and “sovereignty” of the states. ?On May 29, 1787, the
>>> first day of substantive debate at the ?Constitutional Convention, a
>>> fellow Virginian, Edmund Randolph, ?presented Madison’s framework.
>>> Madison’s Commerce Clause was there ?from the start, except that
>>> instead of a 25-year grant of federal ?authority, the central
>>> government’s control of interstate commerce ?would be made permanent.
>>> Madison’s convention notes on Randolph’s presentation recount him
>>> saying that “there were many advantages, which the U. S. might
>>> acquire, which were not attainable under the confederation – such as
>>> a ?productive impost [or tax] – counteraction of the commercial
>>> regulations of other nations – pushing of commerce ad libitum – &c
>>> &c.” ?In other words, the Founders – at their most “originalist”
>>> moment – ?understood the value of the federal government taking action
>>> to negate ?the commercial advantages of other countries and to take
>>> steps for ?“pushing of [American] commerce.” The “ad libitum – &c &c”
>>> notation ?suggests that Randolph provided other examples off the top
>>> of his ?head. ?Historian Bill Chapman has summarized Randolph’s point
>>> as saying “we ?needed a government that could co-ordinate commerce in
>>> order to ?compete effectively with other nations.” ?So, from the very
>>> start of the debate on a new Constitution, Madison ?and other key
>>> framers recognized that a legitimate role of the U.S. ?Congress was to
>>> ensure that the nation could match up against other ?countries
>>> economically and could address problems impeding the ?nation’s
>>> economic success and the public welfare. ?The constitutional framers
>>> understood what they were doing. As ?historian Richard Labunski wrote
>>> in James Madison and the Struggle for ?the Bill of Rights, “no one
>>> knew better than the delegates that the ?proposed Constitution would
>>> drastically alter the structure of ?government. Much of the power of
>>> the states would be taken from them.” ?The point also was not missed
>>> by the advocates of states’ rights. ?After the Constitutional
>>> Convention, these Anti-Federalists, led by ?Madison’s chief rival
>>> Patrick Henry, mounted a fierce campaign to ?defeat Madison’s scheme
>>> because they recognized that it concentrated ?power in the central
>>> government. ?For instance, dissidents from Pennsylvania’s convention
>>> delegation ?wrote: “We dissent … because the powers vested in Congress
>>> by this ?constitution, must necessarily annihilate and absorb the
>>> legislative, ?executive, and judicial powers of the several states,
>>> and produce from ?their ruins one consolidated government.” [See David
>>> Wootton, The ?Essential Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.] ?As
>>> resistance to Madison’s plan spread – and as states elected ?delegates
>>> to ratifying conventions – Madison feared that his ?constitutional
>>> masterwork would go down to defeat or be subjected to a ?second
>>> convention that might remove important federal powers like the
>>> Commerce Clause. ?Finessing the Opposition ?So, Madison – along with
>>> Alexander Hamilton and John Jay – began a ?series of essays, called
>>> the Federalist Papers, designed to counter ?the fierce (though
>>> generally accurate) attacks by the Anti-Federalists ?against the broad
>>> assertion of federal power in the Constitution. ?Madison’s strategy
>>> was essentially to insist that the drastic changes ?contained in the
>>> Constitution were not all that drastic, an approach ?he took both as a
>>> delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention and in ?the Federalist
>>> Papers. ?Today’s Right has sought to transform Madison from his role
>>> as the ?chief advocate for a strong central government into the
>>> opposite – a ?modern-day Tea Partier before his time – by citing
>>> Federalist Paper ?No. 45, entitled “The Alleged Danger From the Powers
>>> of the Union to ?the State Governments Considered,” in which Madison
>>> used the pseudonym ?Publius. ?Trying to finesse the opposition to his
>>> plan for enhanced federal
>>>
>>> powers, Madison wrote: “If the new Constitution be examined with
>>>
>>> accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists
>>> much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the
>>> invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”
>>> But even that was an admission from Madison that the Constitution
>>> added teeth to what had been toothless authorities theoretically
>>> granted to the central government under the Articles. Making powers
>>> meaningful, rather than ineffectual, is not an insignificant change.
>>> Madison also noted: “The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new
>>> power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from
>>> which no apprehensions are entertained.”
>>> Yet, to claim Madison as an opponent of an activist federal
>>> government, the Right must ignore both his advocacy for beefing up
>>> what had been weak authorities and adding the crucial new one over
>>> commerce. The Right also must ignore Federalist Paper No. 14 in which
>>> Madison envisioned major construction projects under the powers
>>> granted by the Commerce Clause.
>>> “[T]he union will be daily facilitated by new improvements,” Madison
>>> wrote. “Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order;
>>> accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an
>>> interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or
>>> nearly throughout the whole extent of the Thirteen States.
>>> “The communication between the western and Atlantic districts, and
>>> between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy
>>> by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has
>>> intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult
>>> to
>>> connect and complete.”
>>> The building of canals, as an argument in support of the Commerce
>>> Clause and the Constitution, further reflects the pragmatic – and
>>> commercial – attitudes of key founders. In 1785, two years before the
>>> Constitutional Convention, George Washington founded the Potowmack
>>> Company, which began the work of digging canals to extend navigable
>>> waterways westward where he and other Founders had invested in Ohio
>>> and other undeveloped lands.
>>> Thus, the idea of involving the central government in major economic
>>> projects – a government-business partnership to create jobs and
>>> profits – was there from the beginning. Madison, Washington and other
>>> early American leaders saw the Constitution as creating a dynamic
>>> system so the young country could grow and overcome the daunting
>>> challenges of its vast territory.
>>> The Founders did debate the proper limits of federal and state
>>> powers,
>>> but again Madison and Washington came down on the side of making
>>> federal statutes and treaties the supreme law of the land. (Madison
>>> had even favored giving Congress veto power over each state law, but
>>> settled for granting the federal courts the authority to overturn
>>> state laws that violated federal statutes.)
>>> After Ratification
>>> The narrow ratification of the Constitution in 1788 did not end the
>>> confrontations over states’ rights, especially when the South began
>>> to
>>> fear that its agriculture-based economy and its lucrative industry of
>>> slavery might be threatened as the industrialized North expanded and
>>> the anti-slavery movement grew.
>>> In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson faced down South
>>> Carolina
>>> over its claimed right to “nullify” federal law. And three decades
>>> later, President Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War to settle the
>>> issue of states having the right to secede from the Union.
>>> Still, as late as the 1950s and 1960s, Southern white supremacists
>>> were still citing the principle of states’ right in defending
>>> segregation. Though the segregationists lost those fights in federal
>>> courts and in the battle for public opinion, they never surrendered.
>>> They simply regrouped.
>>> In the mid-1970s, as the Vietnam War ended, the American Left began
>>> shutting down or selling off much its media, which had proved
>>> effective in reaching out to the public to build opposition to the
>>> war. At the same time, the Right began investing heavily in its own
>>> media infrastructure.
>>> Wealthy right-wing foundations and industrialists, like the Koch
>>> Brothers, also poured money into think tanks, which hired clever
>>> individuals who began reframing the national narrative. Part of that
>>> effort was to support “scholarship” that transformed Madison and
>>> other
>>> key framers from advocates of a strong central government into
>>> proponents for states’ rights.
>>> A few of Madison’s quotes – from 1788 as he tried to downplay how
>>> radical his new constitutional system actually was – were plucked out
>>> of context, while other parts of his biography as an advocate for a
>>> strong central government were simply erased.
>>> By Ronald Reagan’s inauguration in 1981, Americans were being told
>>> that “government is the problem” and that the nation had deviated
>>> from
>>> the Founders’ original vision of an Ayn Rand-style “free-market”
>>> society in which everyone was on their own and the government only
>>> worried about fighting wars.
>>> Increasingly, the Right pitched itself as the defender of the
>>> nation’s
>>> founding ideals. Any time the central government sought to address
>>> vexing national problems – from the need to regulate Wall Street to
>>> extending health coverage to the tens of millions of uninsured
>>> Americans – these proposals were labeled “unconstitutional.”
>>> Some right-wing jurists, most notably Supreme Court Justice Antonin
>>> Scalia, advocated “originalism,” insisting that constitutional powers
>>> should apply only to what the Founders had in mind at the time. The
>>> Right ignored the clear record that the Founders intended their
>>> governing structure to meet both their immediate needs and the
>>> distant
>>> interests of their “posterity.”
>>> Indeed, if there was any true “originalism,” it was that the
>>> Constitution should be sufficiently dynamic to cope with any number
>>> of
>>> anticipated and unanticipated challenges that might confront the
>>> nation. As the discussion about canal building shows, Madison,
>>> Washington and other key framers were pragmatists.
>>> One-Sided Debate
>>> Yet, while the Right was bending the founding narrative to its
>>> purposes, the Left largely dismissed the importance of this debate,
>>> perhaps in part because the Left tends to disdain many Founders as
>>> slave-owning aristocrats who hypocritically denied their precious
>>> “unalienable rights” to women, blacks, Indians, the poor and many
>>> others.
>>> While that surely was true, the nation’s founding narrative retains a
>>> strong mythic appeal to many Americans – and the Right’s twisting of
>>> the history has proved a powerful tactic to rally many middle- and
>>> working-class Americans, particularly white men, to the Tea Party
>>> cause and to the Republican Party.
>>> Believing they’re channeling the true spirit of the Founders, many of
>>> these average Americans end up siding with ultra-rich plutocrats who
>>> see an effective and democratized federal government as the last
>>> obstacle to their total domination of the United States.
>>> Thus, the Tea Partiers and their allies fight: to let Wall Street
>>> banks operate as recklessly as they wish; to let health insurance
>>> companies deny coverage to sick people; to let rich investors pay
>>> lower tax rates than their secretaries; to let billionaires buy up
>>> the
>>> political process through Super-PACs; to let companies outsource
>>> jobs;
>>> to let industry despoil the environment; and to slash life-saving
>>> federal programs like Medicare, food stamps and Social Security.
>>> The “logic” behind this “populist” support for the interests of the
>>> rich is that many average folk think they are engaged in a principled
>>> stand for “liberty” – with the federal government their oppressor,
>>> standing in for the British Crown in 1776. That’s why the Tea
>>> Partiers
>>> wave “Don’t Tread on Me” flags and dress up in Revolutionary War
>>> costumes.
>>> Simply put, these Tea Partiers have been fooled by a well-funded
>>> propaganda campaign tricking them by substituting a false narrative
>>> about the nation’s founding and thus enlisting their help in
>>> dismantling the Great American Middle Class.
>>> Building the Middle Class
>>> Many of these Americans have forgotten a basic truth: that the Great
>>> American Middle Class was largely a creation of the federal
>>> government
>>> and its policies dating back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. For
>>> many Tea Partiers, it is more satisfying to think that they or their
>>> parents climbed the social ladder on their own, that they “didn’t
>>> need
>>> no guv-mint help.”
>>> But the truth is that it was government policies arising out of the
>>> Great Depression and carried forward through the post-World War II
>>> years by both Republican and Democratic presidents that created the
>>> opportunities for tens of millions of Americans to achieve relative
>>> comfort and economic security.
>>> Those policies ranged from Social Security and labor rights in the
>>> 1930s to the GI Bill after World War II to Medicare in the 1960s and
>>> to government investments in infrastructure and technological
>>> research
>>> over many decades. Even in recent years, despite right-wing efforts
>>> to
>>> choke off money to government research, federal programs – such as
>>> the
>>> Internet – have brought greater efficiency to markets, as well as
>>> wealth to many entrepreneurs.
>>> So, the Right’s success in dismantling the New Deal, piece by piece,
>>> and shoving more and more Americans down the social ladder has hinged
>>> on the demonization of “guv-mint.” This message – often wrapped in
>>> patriotic hoopla and coded appeals to bigotry – were delivered most
>>> effectively by the personable Ronald Reagan in the 1980s.
>>> Yet, while rallying many working-class “Reagan Democrats” to his
>>> banner, Reagan’s most important policy was slashing taxes on the
>>> rich.
>>> Under Reagan’s “supply-side economics,” the top marginal tax rate –
>>> what the richest Americans pay on their highest tranche of income –
>>> was more than halved, from 70 percent to 28 percent.
>>> Still, the promised surge in “supply-side” growth never really
>>> materialized and a key result was the dramatic rise in the national
>>> debt. Another less obvious change was the incentivizing of greed,
>>> which had been discouraged by the much higher marginal tax rates of
>>> the post-World War II years, from Dwight Eisenhower (when the top
>>> marginal tax rate was 90 percent) through Jimmy Carter (with a 70
>>> percent top rate).
>>> After all, if 70 to 90 percent of your highest tranche of income went
>>> to the government to help pay for building the nation, you had little
>>> personal incentive to press for that extra $1 million or $2 million
>>> in
>>> compensation.
>>> So corporate CEOs – while well-paid – were happy earning about 25
>>> times as much as their average worker in the 1960s. A few decades
>>> later, that ratio on CEO pay was about 200 times what the average
>>> worker was making.
>>> The consequences of several decades of Reaganism and its related
>>> ideas
>>> (such as the “free-market” shipping of many middle-class jobs
>>> overseas
>>> where workers are paid much less) are now apparent. Wealth has been
>>> concentrated at the top with billionaires living extravagant lives
>>> while the middle class struggles. One everyman after another gets
>>> shoved down the ladder.
>>> The data is now clear that the last three decades have witnessed a
>>> divergence between the haves and the have-nots unprecedented in the
>>> United States, at least since the lead-up to the Great Depression
>>> when
>>> a similar era of income inequality set the stage for financial
>>> disaster.
>>> For instance, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office – in an
>>> analysis of data from 1979 to 2005 – found that the inflation-
>>> adjusted
>>> income of middle-class Americans rose about 21 percent (only about
>>> one-
>>> fifth the increase enjoyed by the middle class during the post-World
>>> War II era).
>>> Meanwhile, the income for the ultra-rich (the top 100th of one
>>> percent) jumped 480 percent from 1979 to 2005, rising from an average
>>> of $4.2 million to $24.3 million. And CBO’s analysis ends in 2005,
>>> thus missing the decimation of the middle class from the Wall Street
>>> bust of 2008.
>>> Struggling Americans
>>> Behind the numbers, the real-life consequences are painful. Millions
>>> of Americans forego needed medical care because they can’t afford
>>> health insurance; young people, burdened by college loans, crowd back
>>> in with their parents; trained workers settle for low-paying jobs or
>>> are unemployed; families skip vacations and other simple pleasures of
>>> life.
>>> Beyond the unfairness, there is the macro-economic problem which
>>> comes
>>> from massive income disparity. A strong economy is one in which the
>>> vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured
>>> more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity.
>>> Plus, the problems facing the nation grow even more severe with
>>> looming shortages of vital resources and the impending catastrophe of
>>> global warming. Only an energetic federal government can focus the
>>> national will to tackle these challenges.
>>> The pragmatic Founders would understand this need for unified action.
>>> Yet, Republicans running for President and GOP members of Congress
>>> continue to call for further cuts in taxes for the rich and more cuts
>>> in government spending, rending the social safety net and slashing
>>> investments in infrastructure, education, research and the
>>> environment.
>>> House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan unveiled a plan Tuesday to reduce the
>>> highest marginal tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent – even lower
>>> than it was under Reagan – while domestic spending would be slashed
>>> and Medicare would be turned into a voucher system with the elderly
>>> paying a much higher share of their health costs.
>>> As in the past, this approach is accompanied by assurances of faster
>>> economic growth, but the record for those promises should now be
>>> clear. The GOP plans are also wrapped in rhetoric about “liberty” and
>>> the “spirit of the Founders” – though in truth that spirit was
>>> infused
>>> with a pragmatic notion of the country pulling together to meet its
>>> challenges
>>> So, what’s at stake in 2012 is not just who wins and how that will
>>> affect the immediate welfare of the American people – but whether a
>>> false narrative about America’s past will lead it into a darkening
>>> future.
>>
>> It’ll be interesting to see if Democrats have to common sense to
>> follow Krugman’s advice.
>>
>>
>> Bret Cahill
>>
>>
>
> We can only hopes so.
>
> Conservatives have already driven two nations, Spain and the UK back
> into recession.
Who spent the money they didn’t have? It was the Socialists.
So who’s fault is it that they have no money and have to ask BANKERS for
their money?

> We KNOW their austerity program makes things worse yet they do it again.
We know Socialism created the situation that has them asking for money
from BANKERS, and the BANKERS see the problem and refuse to fund a
failed Socialist lifestyle.

> Same for American Republicans.
Republicans are trying to stop the Socialist spending before the
collapse, unlike the Europeans. Europeans are already broke and begging
the BANKERS FOE MONEY.

> Let’s hope Democrats don’t follow the failed path of austerity
They won’t…. they’ll continue on their Socialist path of spending more
than they have until we in the USA also have to beg the BANKERS for
money and the BANKERS will again tell these fools that they would NOT
give money to fools that spend more than they earn, indefinitely as a
way of life.

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

admin — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:36:30 +0000

On 4/21/2012 12:41 AM, Nickname unavailable wrote:

> OBTW, as you remove poor people from the tax rolls, due to the
> fact that the wealthy are absorbing just about every red cent left in
> america. the percentage of taxes they pay, will appear larger, because
> so many have been removed from the tax rolls, and because the wealthy
> make so much more now.

From what you said… I understand that you think the poor need to go
out and earn more so they can pay more tax? Is that correct?

Or do you want 90% of us all using government money to live and eat and
live like Socialists with all things derived from the government, while
the 10% who are elite millionaires working in the government decide and
pay for everything with their tax money…. essentially you want to
live under communism but give it the facade of being a Capitalist
system. When the people are enslaved in their social and financial
strata by government taxes and regulations and policy, they are really
serfs and we will actually be living in a serfdom. Odd how governments
naturally gravitate to totalitarian rule and tyranny and making the
masses into serfs. But such is the Nature of Socialism and the more it
permeates the government the closer we are to that serfdom.

What needs to be done it to get rid of most of government and stop
people from living off the government so as to get rid of the serfdom
that’s being created by a combination of Government and Socialists.

Socialism will create a Static class of elites that will never change,
look at Castro and Putin and any other Socialist Nation, the leadership
cling to the power and money and never leave. And that means there is a
static class of serfs. Laws and government regulations and taxes will
keep you in your place as a serf while they spew propaganda that says
you are equal and the rich Capitalists are/were evil.

I’m sure there are ways around welfare and Food Stamps like simply hiring the people that need food stamps…. but at least it is constitutional. And I am pro Constitution.

admin — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 18:59:13 +0000

On 4/17/2012 11:13 PM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> April 17, 2012
>>
>>> GOP to Cut Food Stamps in Deficit-Reduction Drive
>>
>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>
>>> WASHINGTON (AP) – Republicans controlling the House are eying big cuts to
>>> food stamps and would make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to claim
>>> child tax credits as they piece together legislation to cut $261 billion in
>>> the coming decade.
>>
>>> It’s the first step in a GOP exercise aimed at cutting domestic programs to
>>> forestall big Pentagon budget cuts next year.
>>
>>> The cuts to food stamps would reduce the monthly benefit for a family of
>>> four by almost $60 and would force up to 3 million people off the program
>>> altogether by tightening eligibility.
>>
>>> The measure would also eliminate a grant program to states for social
>>> services like day care. Six House panels are producing legislation this week
>>> as the first step in implementing the GOP‘s budget plan.
>>
>>> –
>>> Ziggy’s law, “For every complicated problem there’s usually a simple
>>> solution and its always wrong!”
>>
>> gee, that ought to make the conservative farmers that support them,
>> really happy to see their customers removed from the program. you can
>> always count on the conservatives/libertarians/fascists to do what
>> does not work, then double down on it.
>
> Food stamps are mostly for ConAgra, not the poor.

Except that the “conservatives” would cut Food Stamps way back if the
Democrats didn’t whine because they need Food Stamps to get voters.

I am more Libertarian than conservatives and I would enforce the
constitution and stop all the extra constitutional activity, and this
Food Stamp program is unconstitutional so I would end it. If the
government wants to give them food, they can HIRE THE POOR to actually
do a job and show up prepared to earn their money to use to go out and
buy food.

I’m sure there are ways around welfare and Food Stamps like simply
hiring the people that need food stamps…. but at least it is
constitutional. And I am pro Constitution.

> The poor don’t have Repug politicians by the ‘nads. ConAgra does.

That is probably just a bit of truth mixed with disinformation.

> Cowardly Repugs are so afraid of ConAgra they refuse to eliminate
> processed junk ConAgra food from the program.
>

Processed junk is legal to make and sell….. Government should step in
only when public safety is showing up as a problem.

I refuse to eat ground up pink slime and haven’t eaten that from any
McDonald’s and cafeteria mystery meats. I don’t eat processed and
prepared foods in general. I have started a while back to make all my
own ground and pre processed foods.

The Marxist sends Bill Ayers’ flash mob loy’uh up to Saint Peter for some social justice

admin — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:35:49 +0000

On 4/13/2012 11:00 PM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:25:51 -0600, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:42:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Wouldn’t have to spend if your f&*$?%g top 20% paid their fair share
>>>> of taxes,
>>>
>>> How much is fair?
>>
>> Pre-1980
>
> Is that you Jimmy Carter?

Those were good times weren’t they… I remember?

The Marxist sends Bill Ayers’ flash mob loy’uh up to Saint Peter for some social justice

admin — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 14:34:12 +0000

On 4/13/2012 10:25 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 20:42:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>> Wouldn’t have to spend if your f&*$?%g top 20% paid their fair share
>>> of taxes,
>>
>> How much is fair?
>
> Pre-1980

So you want 75% ? But Don Corleone only wants 50%, the church 10%
charity 2%, and inflation 6%, and my ex-wife 80%,

I only need 223% to make everyone happy…. that should be easy.

Austerity, Social Unrest, And Europe’s ‘Lose-Lose’ Proposition

admin — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:43:15 +0000

On 4/14/2012 9:26 PM, Old Pif wrote:
> On Apr 14, 7:52 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 4/14/2012 7:16 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 14, 1:47 pm, Werner wrote:
>>>> Austerity, Social Unrest, And Europe‘s ‘Lose-Lose’ Propositionhttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/austerity-social-unrest-and-europes-los…
>>
>>> austerity is a direct assault on capitalism. it has failed every time
>>> its tried, anywhere its tried.
>>
>> You are confused, it’s Socialism that has failed where ever tried and
>> austerity is the fix for that failed Socialism…. The problem is you
>> are blaming the problem on the solution.
>>
>
> Any plans to impose austerity on the Wall Street bailouts?

It was suggested that austerity will cause the collapse and
unemployment, but it was the Socialist government spending spree that
ran out of money and that “is” the problem.

Of course the solutions are going to leave a bad taste in your mouth
since they will correct that government gone wild spending and that is
hard for anyone to give up. How would you cut off your kids allowance
and toss them out of the house at age 35 and make it feel good?

The Socialists can’t feed and care for the baby birds for ever,
eventually the little birds will be shoved out of the nest so the
parents and young can care for themselves…. it is how it is.

If NOT then the young bird grows and needs so much food that the parent
bird can’t feed its self and its young, then they all die as the parent
that supplies the food for all starves. We will either suffer while we
lose Government taking care of us, or the government will collapse and
we will all suffer as government can no longer function and fill it’s
own basic needs.

Austerity is what happens when you can no longer pay for your Socialism
gone wild. Socialists think they can ignore reality and spend their way
out which makes it all just collapse deeper and longer as they spend
time and energy digging the hole that much deeper.

Austerity, Social Unrest, And Europe’s ‘Lose-Lose’ Proposition

admin — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:29:14 +0000

It was suggested that austerity will cause the collapse and
unemployment, but it was the Socialist government spending spree that
ran out of money and that “is” the problem.

The Socialists can’t feed and care for the baby birds for ever,
eventually the little birds will be shoved out of the nest so the
parents and young can care for themselves…. it is how it is.

The Marxist sends Bill Ayers’ flash mob loy’uh up to Saint Peter for some social justice

admin — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 00:42:32 +0000

On 4/13/2012 8:38 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:44:37 -0400, emoneyjoe
> wrote:
>
>> Poor url. Federal spending would not be as bad
>> if they didn’t borrow the money they spend.
>
> Wouldn’t have to spend if your f&*$?%g top 20% paid their fair share
> of taxes,

How much is fair?

> stopped cutting their taxes, stopped shifting the burden to
> the middle class and stopped lying us into wars.

Obama is lying us into wars like the Libya war.

Zimmerman’s legal counsel drop him as a client. Zimmerman on the lamm?

admin — Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:45:22 +0000

>>> > Wow, you have 3 tv ‘s in your trailer so you can see what is being
>>> aired
>>
>>>> on all 3 networks at the same time? damn, you should be getting less
>>>> money in your welfare checks
>>
>>> A liberal and somebody else’s money are soon partying.
>>
>> once you have helped the richest 2% , accumulate almost all of the
>> wealth and power in the united states, which side of the wealth divide
>> will you find yourself on?

It will change on a daily basis, I may wake up broke or Rich, the point
is you base your life success on wealth. The funny thing is I never met
a wealthy person that I liked as a human being. My friends have
always been poor and a few middle class. I lived in Miami and knew and
was around, plenty of really rich people. But NOT one of them ever
struck me as interesting or fun. I prefer the hole in the wall
neighborhoods and shopping and social events like a little unknown
seafood festival or a crab-house/bar. I have eaten in plenty of high
dollar restaurants and never enjoyed one of them. It’s all in the
Declaration of Independence, you seek happiness. But Liberal-Socialists
have distorted this to mean that they seek wealth and forcing everyone
to have equal happiness by forcing us to have equal dollars.
Liberal-Socialists are just greedy morons that are NEVER HAPPY, even
when they are wealthy, they want to meddle in my wallet like Warren Buffet.

Asleep At the Wheel Dems are par for the course

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:59:59 +0000

On 4/5/2012 1:43 PM, Harold Burton wrote:
> In article
> @&*$?%o4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>> As every teabagger who thought he was going to get rich quick with the
>> Gipster will tell you, the Constitution “guarantees equal
>> opportunities, not equal outcomes.”

Period, end of sentence, stop. That’s the whole story.

Does this NOW mean that you reject *SOCIAL JUSTICE* and it’s promise of
equal outcome or are you just trying to give us a Big`Ole wet kiss
before you f&*$?%k us?

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstanding that the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:14:49 +0000

On 4/5/2012 2:39 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On Apr 4, 3:29 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:OImdnaItlrMsPuHSnZ2dnUVZ5u-dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 3:17 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>>>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>> news:82fd6613-7c33-430b-a9b3-a2472ca5ab6d @&*$?%n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com…
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:36 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 9:59 am, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> news:oqOdnUww9dXHxOTSnZ2dnUVZ5g2dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2012 5:36 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I answered the question. You asked why I incorporated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I told you. Now you are admitting that it is double
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxation and moving the goal post to claim it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> voluntary since no one forced me to go incorporate.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody claimed both entities are not taxed. Each is taxed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once. You are claiming both entities should not be taxed,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you have yet to come up with a legitimate reason.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heck of an argument. Just claim my explanation is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate reason. That will convince me, sure thing.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the profit is taxed when it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made by the company and when it is distributed to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> owners. This is the double taxation that should be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> explained and justified. If I were like you, I would say
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you have not yet given a legitimate reason for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxation, but I have done more and explained why i see it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as unfair.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have even given the example of why by using an analogy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I make money at work and bring it home and give it to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my wife, it is not taxed a second time. The corporation is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> very similar. it makes the money and then gives it to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> true owner of the money.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is a second alternative. Allow the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> corporation to count the dividend as an expense so it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed as profit then. Either way eliminates the double
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxation on the same profit.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Or, not tax the divadends earned by the investors, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> would encourage more people to invest in the stock market
>>>>>>>>>>>> and promote American business. While they are at it, they
>>>>>>>>>>>> should invest our SS money in American business also,
>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of spending it, which is what they are doing with
>>>>>>>>>>>> it now.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Buying an existing stock does not promote American business.
>>>>>>>>>>> It simply moves the ownership from one person to another.
>>>>>>>>>>> More Republican bullshit
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> i love it. a real investor invests in new issues.
>>>>>>>>>> buying existing stocks for a income stream, and doing no
>>>>>>>>>> useful productive work is being parasitical. i wonder which
>>>>>>>>>> one of these cranks fits the unproductive definition, i bet
>>>>>>>>>> all of them:))))
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just putting money in the stock market is good enough. There
>>>>>>>>> are those who
>>>>>>>>> specialize in IPO,s and they will put the money into them.
>>>>>>>>> Every investor doesn’t have to buy IPO‘s for their money to
>>>>>>>>> find its way there, but believe
>>>>>>>>> me, that’s where it goes sooner or later.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> you can back up that claim correct?
>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>>>> He posts total bullshit.
>>>>>>> Even an IPO does not, in most cases create ne jobs or
>>>>>>> enterprises. Many times it’s an existing privately owned company
>>>>>>> going “public”
>>>>
>>>>>> correct, or they are setting up more 1990 nasdaq tech companies,
>>>>>> where profits no longer matter.
>>>>
>>>>>>> No new jobs just loads of public money for the owners.
>>>>
>>>>>> yep, many so called investors, are just fodder for grifters. i
>>>>>> wonder why so many of these so-called investors, even need to
>>>>>> invest collectively, can’t they do it by themselves? start up
>>>>>> their own companies, be a success. instead they need to
>>>>>> collectively invest to try to show some success.
>>>>
>>>>> So where do you enlightened liberals invest your money? And, are
>>>>> you happy living in a trailer court outside Tulsa or somewhere on
>>>>> your social security checks? Tell me, how does my saving and
>>>>> investing for my old age amount to stealing from the poor and
>>>>> climbing up their backs to stuff my own pockets?
>>>>
>>>> I’m willing to follow the rules you created.
>>>> I haven’t worked in years and my net worth keeps increasing.
>>>> I like it.
>>>> BUT…It’s unfair.
>>>> Buffett has it right
>>
>> “Life” isn’t fair, some of us will die of cancer very young and some
>> won’t. Should all the money go to those that will die young so they
>> can cram a 65 year life into 5 or 10 or 30 years?
>>
>>
>> You seem to think money can balance anything.
>
> No, but I’d rather cry in my Ferrari than in my Chevy…..

At one time I’d rather have had the Chevy. But that’s what made America
Great before these dark times of the Socialist awakening….

I’ve never had much use for RICH KIDS or SOCIALISTS. That’s probably
why the Occupy movement looks like a bunch of useful idiots, they score
on both accounts..

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstanding that the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:11:30 +0000

At one time I’d rather have had the Chevy. But that’s what made America
Great before these dark times of the Socialist awakening….

Where did ALL these banks get ALL this excessive money to loan?,,It’smyunderstanding that the Federal Reserve sets MONEY POLICY.

admin — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 04:19:51 +0000

> On Apr 4, 3:29 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>
>> news:OImdnaItlrMsPuHSnZ2dnUVZ5u-dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>
>>
>>
>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>> On Apr 3, 3:17 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>>> “Nickname unavailable” wrote in message
>>
>>>>> news:82fd6613-7c33-430b-a9b3-a2472ca5ab6d @&*$?%n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com…
>>
>>>>>> On Apr 2, 11:36 pm, “Bill Graham” wrote:
>>>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 9:59 am, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>
>>>>>>>>> news:oqOdnUww9dXHxOTSnZ2dnUVZ5g2dnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/1/2012 5:36 PM, jim wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I answered the question. You asked why I incorporated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I told you. Now you are admitting that it is double
>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxation and moving the goal post to claim it is voluntary
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since no one forced me to go incorporate.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody claimed both entities are not taxed. Each is taxed
>>>>>>>>>>>> once. You are claiming both entities should not be taxed,
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you have yet to come up with a legitimate reason.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Heck of an argument. Just claim my explanation is not a
>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate reason. That will convince me, sure thing.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You have yet to explain why the profit is taxed when it is
>>>>>>>>>>> made by the company and when it is distributed to the owners.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is the double taxation that should be explained and
>>>>>>>>>>> justified. If I were like you, I would say that you have not
>>>>>>>>>>> yet given a legitimate reason for the taxation, but I have
>>>>>>>>>>> done more and explained why i see it as unfair.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have even given the example of why by using an analogy. If I
>>>>>>>>>>> make money at work and bring it home and give it to my wife,
>>>>>>>>>>> it is not taxed a second time. The corporation is very
>>>>>>>>>>> similar. it makes the money and then gives it to the true
>>>>>>>>>>> owner of the money.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Of course, there is a second alternative. Allow the
>>>>>>>>>>> corporation to count the dividend as an expense so it is not
>>>>>>>>>>> taxed as profit then. Either way eliminates the double
>>>>>>>>>>> taxation on the same profit.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Rothstein
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Or, not tax the divadends earned by the investors, which would
>>>>>>>>>> encourage more people to invest in the stock market and promote
>>>>>>>>>> American business. While they are at it, they should invest our
>>>>>>>>>> SS money in American business also, instead of spending it,
>>>>>>>>>> which is what they are doing with it now.
>>
>>>>>>>>> Buying an existing stock does not promote American business.
>>>>>>>>> It simply moves the ownership from one person to another.
>>>>>>>>> More Republican bullshit
>>
>>>>>>>> i love it. a real investor invests in new issues.
>>>>>>>> buying existing stocks for a income stream, and doing no useful
>>>>>>>> productive work is being parasitical. i wonder which one of these
>>>>>>>> cranks fits the unproductive definition, i bet all of them:))))
>>
>>>>>>> Just putting money in the stock market is good enough. There are
>>>>>>> those who
>>>>>>> specialize in IPO,s and they will put the money into them. Every
>>>>>>> investor doesn’t have to buy IPO‘s for their money to find its way
>>>>>>> there, but believe
>>>>>>> me, that’s where it goes sooner or later.
>>
>>>>>> you can back up that claim correct?
>>
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>
>>>>> He posts total bullshit.
>>>>> Even an IPO does not, in most cases create ne jobs or enterprises.
>>>>> Many times it’s an existing privately owned company going “public”
>>
>>>> correct, or they are setting up more 1990 nasdaq tech companies,
>>>> where profits no longer matter.
>>
>>>>> No new jobs just loads of public money for the owners.
>>
>>>> yep, many so called investors, are just fodder for grifters. i wonder
>>>> why so many of these so-called investors, even need to invest
>>>> collectively, can’t they do it by themselves? start up their own
>>>> companies, be a success. instead they need to collectively invest to
>>>> try to show some success.
>>
>>> So where do you enlightened liberals invest your money? And, are you happy
>>> living in a trailer court outside Tulsa or somewhere on your social
>>> security checks? Tell me, how does my saving and investing for my old age
>>> amount to stealing from the poor and climbing up their backs to stuff my
>>> own pockets?
>>
>> I’m willing to follow the rules you created.
>> I haven’t worked in years and my net worth keeps increasing.
>> I like it.
>> BUT…It’s unfair.
>> Buffett has it right

“Life” isn’t fair, some of us will die of cancer very young and some
won’t. Should all the money go to those that will die young so they can
cram a 65 year life into 5 or 10 or 30 years?

You seem to think money can balance anything.

You like the idea of investing “your retirement funds” with Bernie Maddoff???? It’s the same thing as having “YOUR Social Security” investing in the Federal Government and Federal Reserve’s Pyramid scheme.

admin — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:04:40 +0000

On 3/29/2012 8:25 PM, Sid9 wrote:
>
> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
> news:HYWdnVQ5PoSbZunSnZ2dnUVZ5umdnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>> Sid9 wrote:
>>> “RD Sandman” wrote in message
>>> news:XnsA0258A5ECBBDAhopewell @&*$?%216.196.121.131…
>>>> “Sid9″ wrote in
>>>> news:jl2fk6$v4d$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>> “RD Sandman” wrote in message
>>>>> news:XnsA02584F01B63Ahopewell @&*$?%216.196.121.131…
>>>>>> “Sid9″ wrote in
>>>>>> news:jl2aio$tpl$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “RD Sandman” wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:XnsA0256DFC85CC7hopewell @&*$?%216.196.121.131…
>>>>>>>> “Sid9″ wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:jl069q$br0$1 @&*$?%dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:jeqdnZhSXIPYCO7SnZ2dnUVZ5uidnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:I8SdnUUtdZki0uzSnZ2dnUVZ5vKdnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Bill Graham” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:C9ednYq_ppXGM-3SnZ2dnUVZ5uudnZ2d @&*$?%giganews.com…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders Kaufman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, sages aren’t governors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this isn’t 17th century England.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point was that you have to define what you mean by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government before your statements about it have any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We already did that – over 200 years ago.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s called the “Establishment Clause” of the constitution.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It defines not just what our government is, but why it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as well. It was put in there specifically for y’all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Libertarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> types – because they knew folks like you would come along
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and not try to give it your own *special* meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Come along? – Give me a break! Thom Jefferson and most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> rest of the founding fathers were all libertarians. It was
>>>>>>>>>>>> everything else that, “Came along”.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not true.
>>>>>>>>>>> They were the merchant class who wanted to make their own
>>>>>>>>>>> rules. They didn’t want some king thousands of miles away
>>>>>>>>>>> making the rules. That’s why we have a constitution and a
>>>>>>>>>>> body of laws. Libertarians would have it otherwise
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This libertarian doesn’t want it otherwise… I worship the
>>>>>>>>>> constitution. It is the only thing that protects me from other
>>>>>>>>>> people voting to steal all my mone3y from me. But Obama wants
>>>>>>>>>> all my money, and he’s going to get it by exactly that…
>>>>>>>>>> Getting rid of the constitution and the individual protections
>>>>>>>>>> it offers to the people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obama wants all your money?
>>>>>>>>> He cut taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He cut payroll tax which, in my not so humble opinion, was a
>>>>>>>> mistake. Social Security is already borrowing money at almost 40
>>>>>>>> cents on the dollar. He also extended the Bush taxcuts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those were TAXCUTs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just where did I say that they weren’t? Take all the screens you
>>>>>> need.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obama cut taxes.
>>>>>>> Whether you agree or disagree is another issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agreed with you, you moron. Do you even read before you respond?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SS borrows?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, you have to when your outgo is more than your income. SS got
>>>>>> into that position last year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> –
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My favorite animal: Steak!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sleep well, tonight…..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RD (The Sandman)
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> .
>>>>> SS is not borrowing.
>>>>> It is redeeming US Treasury bonds.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, but since its income is less than its outgo it has to get its
>>>> money from the general fund. You don’t really believe that there is
>>>> a Social Security trust fund full of money laying around do you?
>>>>
>>>>> Money from the SS trust fund that was loaned, in part, to pay for
>>>>> Republican bush,jr’s unfunded wars.
>>>>
>>>> And to pay those monies, the government has to borrow
>>>> money…..currently at about 37-38 cents on the dollar.
>>>>
>>>>> Have your forgotten the deceptive Republican phrase, “Off budget”
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Your statement is deceptive.
>>>>> SS borrows nothing.
>>>>
>>>> You think it is created out of thin air?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> –
>>>>
>>>> My favorite animal: Steak!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sleep well, tonight…..
>>>>
>>>> RD (The Sandman)
>>>
>>> Still sticking with the Republican deception of the status of SS?
>>
>> The government used the SS money by putting it in the general fund and
>> spending it. Just because they keep a paper trail somewhere doesn’t
>> make it OK to spend the money. Since they are 14 trillion dollars in
>> debt, what difference does it make whether that money has, “social
>> security” tags on it or not? That’s like me owing 100K on my house,
>> but having 2 k in my bank account and saying that I am not in debt.
>> Only my house is an asset, and the money the government owes isn’t
>> backed up by any asset anywhere. Of course the SS is broke. The
>> government is broke, and the government underwrites the SS.
>
> Your premise is predicated on the United States government defaulting on
> the SS trust fund.
> It will never happen.

You like the idea of investing your retirement funds with Bernie
Maddoff? It’s the same thing as having Social Security investing in the
Federal Government and Federal Reserve’s Pyramid scheme.

Sandra Fluke – The newest entitlement icon and prostitute for social Liberalism

admin — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 22:56:06 +0000

On 3/25/2012 5:55 PM, Phlip wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2:22 pm, “C…@PrayForMe.com” wrote:
>
>> Unlike you Bob, many see paying for contraception for others as a
>> moral issue.
>
> And you don’t give two craps that Sandra Fluke pays her own health
> care premiums.
>
> Continue reciting talking points!

What’s more is hat it isn’t a necessary need of life.

You can live without having sex.

red state love affairs with porn:)People subscribe to a lot of porn in the southern Bible Belt states:I really believe it is suppression:Freud himself said that the more you suppress people the more they are going to want to do something

admin — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:20:38 +0000

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:40:35 -0700 (PDT), Nickname unavailable
wrote:

>On Mar 21, 5:35 am, Ruut66 wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 1:52 am, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > red state love affairs with porn:)People subscribe to a lot of porn in
>> > the southern Bible Belt states:I really believe it is
>> > suppression:Freud himself said that the more you suppress people the
>> > more they are going to want to do something:It might be due to
>> > conservatism I think that definitely plays a role
>>
>> >http://www.alternet.org/sex/154539/The_Bible_Belt%27s_Love_Affair_Wit…
>>
>> > AlterNet / By Alex Henderson
>>
>> > The Bible Belt‘s Love Affair With (Gay and Straight) Porn
>> > The GOP presidential hopefuls keep vilifying porn. Odd that the very
>> > people they’re trying to pander to consume massive amounts of it.
>> > March 13, 2012 |
>>
>> > The adult entertainment industry has long been one of the favorite
>> > whipping boys of social conservatives, who have argued that porn and
>> > other forms of adult entertainment (including strip clubs, swing
>> > clubs, phone sex and BDSM) are incompatible with the moral values of
>> > the Heartland and the Bible Belt.
>>
>> I just wonder who makes money in this industry? Sheldon Adelson‘s
>> Jewish maffia? No wonder there is no dialogue when omerta is part of
>> the businessplan.
>>
>> R

>
> or perhaps the red states are severely sexually repressed, and loaded
>with self loathers.
>
>In blue states, families tend to be well-educated/

well-indoctrinated….. They are *NOT* “smart”.

> have high-paying
>jobs/

I wouldn’t live in those Liberal toilets unless I did get a shitload
of money, and even then there are some Liberals shitholes I would live
in at any price.

You neglected to mention that it costs much more to live in a heavily
regulated and HIGH TAX BLUE STATE than in many other places.

> be tolerant of diversity/be politically liberal/

Yes I told you they are indoctrinated fools.

>They marry later
>in life/

Who would marry a nasty liberal witch, or what kind of woman wants a
eunuch as a husband.

>have children in wedlock and are dedicated co-parents: Red
>states have high rates of teen births, young (?shotgun?) marriages and

You forced tech red states to pass out the condoms and told us that
was the fix. Who gets abortions….?

>divorce. Red-state families are also less likely to be college
>graduates,

and that is bad? why is college a cure-all?

You sound like a *SNAKE-OIL* salesman trying to sell your wares….
Plenty of people are happy and plenty successful and plenty are
wealthy and they didn’t need your indoctrination at a college to get
that happiness.

> get top jobs or create households where husbands and wives
>share equally in parenting and chores.

OOOOOOoooowwww they “equally” share chores….. Well why are there
zero women doing the hard work? Why do they shake their money maker
rather than dig a ditch? You are an idiot.

So what you want is NO diversity and that everyone live the “Liberal”
utopian lifestyle of being a really self important a&*$?%e from New
York or Chicago that treats people like something they stepped in and
looks down on everyone because they received a much longer time
absorbing useless government education and authorized and funded
minutia?

ONE OUT OF FIVE Americans are Illiterate

admin — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:56:16 +0000

On 3/20/2012 3:15 AM, True American Patriot wrote:
> New Study: ONE OUT OF FIVE Americans are Illiterate
>
> http://www.examiner.com/bexar-county-elections-2010-in-san-antonio/elections-the-south-illiteracy-the-wholly-trinity-religion
>
> / / a recent poll published by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public
> Life reveal what social scientists have known for a long time: White
> Evangelical Christians are the group least likely to support
> politicians or policies that reflect the actual teachings of Jesus. It
> is perhaps one of the strangest, most dumb-founding ironies in
> contemporary American culture.

Would you EXPECT ANY LESS *FROM A GOVERNMENT ENTITY* ?

Those that gave you Solendra and FANNY MAE and a Constitution that’s NO
longer useful… were bound to succeed in education.

You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.

admin — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 03:46:21 +0000

On 3/17/2012 12:48 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2012 1:48 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:10:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2012 11:43 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:44:17 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/15/2012 12:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>> news:hbr2m71fn1n7jh86t4gt1i3qcgkto20ic2 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:27:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 11:03 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:03:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjojqa$l5s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnbl6l92ul2t0a43mt36 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don’t and haven’t. They have simply said that they will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes against the tenets of the church and they are the ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying the premiums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conduct their business to me, namely the church says the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance company cannot add a policy rider directly with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employee for free birth control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has any authorization to change the terms of the contract the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Church made with the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rider does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rider – endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of a contract you’re involved in without your permission?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawful? I don’t know. My point above being only that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious rights of the employer aren’t the only thing at stake
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States telling a private company what it _must_ provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters to those of us that think the Constitution actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters, but the only issue here is that the church _not_ be
>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to provide coverage for service that it finds offensive to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the very core of the church.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation
>>>>>>>>>>>> clause because religion is too close to government, then surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same screamers should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over
>>>>>>>>>>>> government telling a church what religious practices it must
>>>>>>>>>>>> violate as it serves its employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employees’ Social Security on religious grounds. But, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employee has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wins the case if the Amish employer sues the government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Amish object to social security? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel
>>>>>>>>>>> it should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force
>>>>>>>>>>> religions to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide
>>>>>>>>>>> what violates their religious tenets?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits
>>>>>>>>>>> and “Islamic community centers” to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>> “discriminating” against their Jewish friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just
>>>>>>>>>>> have to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for
>>>>>>>>>>> Asians and Mexicans….
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into
>>>>>>>>>>> all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Religions should not be in the business of business. However, if
>>>>>>>>>> they elect to do so, they should abide by the rules applicable to
>>>>>>>>>> all the other businesses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell government to stop taxing them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you sure that pastors, asset. pastors, etc, pay income taxes? You
>>>>>>>> might want to check that out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmmmm, I remember a little story told to me about the collections in the
>>>>>>> church. It seems that a reverend, a priest and a rabbi where discussing
>>>>>>> that collection plate business when the question arose as to how the
>>>>>>> plate was divided between the person and church. The reverend replied
>>>>>>> that he drew a 10‘ circle around himself and threw the monies collected
>>>>>>> into the air. What remained in the circle he gave to God and what left
>>>>>>> the circle he kept. The priest said he did the same thing but in
>>>>>>> reverse. What left the circle he gave to God and what stayed in the
>>>>>>> circle, he kept. Then they both turned to the rabbi. The rabbi said
>>>>>>> that he didn’t need a circle. He simply threw all the money in the air
>>>>>>> and whatever God wanted he took.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, I expect lightning from several corners.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the IRS says you have to be a “NON PROFIT” and that means file a
>>>>>> tax form to prove you are a non profit. If you engage in politics you
>>>>>> lose your tax exemption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the IRS decides what is religion and what is NOT.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The IRS determines what is exempt and not.
>>>>
>>>> The constitution says they can’t tax or interfere with or create a
>>>> National religion, so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
>>>> is NOT Religion.
>>>
>>> Nope, that’s not what it says. It does say that tax money can not be
>>> used to support a particular religion though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Taxation yet they get no benefits from the taxation?
>>
>>
>>
>> And they can’t preach any political rhetoric?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s a one way street isn’t it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Like taxation with no representation, the religions pay tax and get no
>> return from the government for their tax.
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously Churches can’t use THE Bridges that were funded by FEDERAL tax
>> dollars or that would be helping a religion with tax dollars correct?
>
> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?

When a Religion prays for you they are giving you a gift, The IRS taxes
gifts….. How can they give to the homeless without paying that tax?

“It would be absurd if Manes can live without Diogenes, but Diogenes
cannot get on without Manes”. -Diogenes-

You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.

admin — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 18:17:03 +0000

On 3/17/2012 12:48 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:41:33 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2012 1:48 AM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:10:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/15/2012 11:43 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:44:17 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/15/2012 12:32 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>> news:hbr2m71fn1n7jh86t4gt1i3qcgkto20ic2 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:27:11 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 11:03 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:03:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjojqa$l5s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnbl6l92ul2t0a43mt36 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They don’t and haven’t. They have simply said that they will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not accept
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goes against the tenets of the church and they are the ones
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying the premiums.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conduct their business to me, namely the church says the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> insurance company cannot add a policy rider directly with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> employee for free birth control.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has any authorization to change the terms of the contract the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Church made with the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rider does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rider – endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> …or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms of a contract you’re involved in without your permission?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lawful? I don’t know. My point above being only that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious rights of the employer aren’t the only thing at stake
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this case.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> United States telling a private company what it _must_ provide
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters to those of us that think the Constitution actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> matters, but the only issue here is that the church _not_ be
>>>>>>>>>>>> forced to provide coverage for service that it finds offensive to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the very core of the church.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> maintained Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation
>>>>>>>>>>>> clause because religion is too close to government, then surely
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same screamers should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over
>>>>>>>>>>>> government telling a church what religious practices it must
>>>>>>>>>>>> violate as it serves its employees.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
>>>>>>>>>>>> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employees’ Social Security on religious grounds. But, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> employee has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wins the case if the Amish employer sues the government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Amish object to social security? Really?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel
>>>>>>>>>>> it should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force
>>>>>>>>>>> religions to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide
>>>>>>>>>>> what violates their religious tenets?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits
>>>>>>>>>>> and “Islamic community centers” to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
>>>>>>>>>>> “discriminating” against their Jewish friends.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just
>>>>>>>>>>> have to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for
>>>>>>>>>>> Asians and Mexicans….
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into
>>>>>>>>>>> all of them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Religions should not be in the business of business. However, if
>>>>>>>>>> they elect to do so, they should abide by the rules applicable to
>>>>>>>>>> all the other businesses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell government to stop taxing them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you sure that pastors, asset. pastors, etc, pay income taxes? You
>>>>>>>> might want to check that out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmmmm, I remember a little story told to me about the collections in the
>>>>>>> church. It seems that a reverend, a priest and a rabbi where discussing
>>>>>>> that collection plate business when the question arose as to how the
>>>>>>> plate was divided between the person and church. The reverend replied
>>>>>>> that he drew a 10‘ circle around himself and threw the monies collected
>>>>>>> into the air. What remained in the circle he gave to God and what left
>>>>>>> the circle he kept. The priest said he did the same thing but in
>>>>>>> reverse. What left the circle he gave to God and what stayed in the
>>>>>>> circle, he kept. Then they both turned to the rabbi. The rabbi said
>>>>>>> that he didn’t need a circle. He simply threw all the money in the air
>>>>>>> and whatever God wanted he took.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, I expect lightning from several corners.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well the IRS says you have to be a “NON PROFIT” and that means file a
>>>>>> tax form to prove you are a non profit. If you engage in politics you
>>>>>> lose your tax exemption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the IRS decides what is religion and what is NOT.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. The IRS determines what is exempt and not.
>>>>
>>>> The constitution says they can’t tax or interfere with or create a
>>>> National religion, so if they tax it they must to be declaring that it
>>>> is NOT Religion.
>>>
>>> Nope, that’s not what it says. It does say that tax money can not be
>>> used to support a particular religion though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Taxation yet they get no benefits from the taxation?
>>
>>
>>
>> And they can’t preach any political rhetoric?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s a one way street isn’t it?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Like taxation with no representation, the religions pay tax and get no
>> return from the government for their tax.
>>
>>
>>
>> Obviously Churches can’t use THE Bridges that were funded by FEDERAL tax
>> dollars or that would be helping a religion with tax dollars correct?
>
> You arguments have become absurd. Is this the best that you have?

No more absurd than me being forced to pay for your contraceptives.

Sometimes absurd people can’t see how absurd they are until someone does
something just as absurd to them.

I point out the absurd like a shock jock would yell and curse at
listeners, in hopes that it wakes people up.

You have been awakened, but you just refuse to open your eyes.

Because business doesn’t abide by the rules of religion and the people have no religious freedom outside the church walls.

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:33:05 +0000

On 3/14/2012 12:05 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 11:31:27 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2012 11:03 PM, Deucalion wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:03:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>> news:jjojqa$l5s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnbl6l92ul2t0a43mt36 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell the
>>>>>>>>>> insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They don’t and haven’t. They have simply said that they will not
>>>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it goes
>>>>>>>>> against the tenets of the church and they are the ones paying the
>>>>>>>>> premiums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to conduct
>>>>>>>> their business to me, namely the church says the insurance company
>>>>>>>> cannot add a policy rider directly with the employee for free birth
>>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company has any
>>>>>>> authorization to change the terms of the contract the Church made with
>>>>>>> the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a rider does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rider – endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses and
>>>>>>> provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> …or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the terms of
>>>>>>> a contract you’re involved in without your permission?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>>>>>> lawful? I don’t know. My point above being only that the religious
>>>>>> rights of the employer aren’t the only thing at stake in this case.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the United
>>>>> States telling a private company what it _must_ provide matters to those
>>>>> of us that think the Constitution actually matters, but the only issue
>>>>> here is that the church _not_ be forced to provide coverage for service
>>>>> that it finds offensive to the very core of the church.
>>>>>
>>>>> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and maintained
>>>>> Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation clause because
>>>>> religion is too close to government, then surely the same screamers
>>>>> should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over government telling a church
>>>>> what religious practices it must violate as it serves its employees.
>>>>>
>>>>> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
>>>>> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>>>>>> employees’ Social Security on religious grounds. But, the employee
>>>>>> has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who wins the case
>>>>>> if the Amish employer sues the government?
>>>>>
>>>>> The Amish object to social security? Really?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel it
>>>> should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force religions
>>>> to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide what violates
>>>> their religious tenets?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits and
>>>> “Islamic community centers” to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
>>>> insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
>>>> “discriminating” against their Jewish friends.
>>>>
>>>> That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just have
>>>> to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for Asians and
>>>> Mexicans….
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all
>>>> of them.
>>>
>>> Religions should not be in the business of business. However, if they
>>> elect to do so, they should abide by the rules applicable to all the
>>> other businesses.
>>
>>
>> So prayer rugs are NOT acceptable and time off to pray is NOT
>> acceptable. Because business doesn’t abide by the rules of religion and
>> the people have no religious freedom outside the church walls.
>
> So, if you work for a moving company that is owned by a Muslim, you
> could be required to carry a prayer rug and pray to Allah during work
> hours regardless of your personal religious beliefs? The church is
> more than welcome to tell their adherents what they can or cannot do.
> However, if they want to open a business they have to go by business
> rules which states that they can not discriminate in violation of the
> Civil Rights, or the Federal Rehabilitation Act (if they receive
> Federal funds.)
>
> BTW, the rules of a business only apply while you are being paid. That
> leaves a lot of time outside both the church and the business to do
> whatever you want to do.

So you want Hooters to tell the Nuns that they can’t wear a Habit and
work…. but you don’t want the church to tell those scantly dressed,
large hootered girls that want birth control supplied, to get it
elsewhere because the church business plan and their business structure
is designed to serve people that like their product.

Why can hooters tell their employees to dress like a floozy and yet the
church business can’t cater to their customers that like to buy where
there is NO support for birth control. That would be akin to telling
hooters that selling their “sex” is legal but the church selling their
“sex” is illegal.

I see no equal under the law in your business model.

Not only are you violating freedom of religion, you violate “equal under
the law”.

Women may have a RIGHT to buy contraceptives, but a business can not
have its RIGHTS violated to force it to supply contraceptives.

Because business doesn’t abide by the rules of religion and the people have no religious freedom outside the church walls.

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 15:31:27 +0000

On 3/13/2012 11:03 PM, Deucalion wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:03:32 -0400, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>
>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>> news:jjojqa$l5s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnbl6l92ul2t0a43mt36 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell the
>>>>>>>> insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They don’t and haven’t. They have simply said that they will not
>>>>>>> accept
>>>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it goes
>>>>>>> against the tenets of the church and they are the ones paying the
>>>>>>> premiums.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to conduct
>>>>>> their business to me, namely the church says the insurance company
>>>>>> cannot add a policy rider directly with the employee for free birth
>>>>>> control.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company has any
>>>>> authorization to change the terms of the contract the Church made with
>>>>> the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a rider does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rider – endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses and
>>>>> provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>>>
>>>>> …or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the terms of
>>>>> a contract you’re involved in without your permission?
>>>>
>>>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>>>> lawful? I don’t know. My point above being only that the religious
>>>> rights of the employer aren’t the only thing at stake in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the United
>>> States telling a private company what it _must_ provide matters to those
>>> of us that think the Constitution actually matters, but the only issue
>>> here is that the church _not_ be forced to provide coverage for service
>>> that it finds offensive to the very core of the church.
>>>
>>> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and maintained
>>> Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation clause because
>>> religion is too close to government, then surely the same screamers
>>> should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over government telling a church
>>> what religious practices it must violate as it serves its employees.
>>>
>>> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
>>> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>>>> employees’ Social Security on religious grounds. But, the employee
>>>> has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who wins the case
>>>> if the Amish employer sues the government?
>>>
>>> The Amish object to social security? Really?
>>
>>
>>
>> So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel it
>> should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force religions
>> to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide what violates
>> their religious tenets?
>>
>>
>> That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits and
>> “Islamic community centers” to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
>> insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
>> “discriminating” against their Jewish friends.
>>
>> That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just have
>> to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for Asians and
>> Mexicans….
>>
>>
>> If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all
>> of them.
>
> Religions should not be in the business of business. However, if they
> elect to do so, they should abide by the rules applicable to all the
> other businesses.

So prayer rugs are NOT acceptable and time off to pray is NOT
acceptable. Because business doesn’t abide by the rules of religion and
the people have no religious freedom outside the church walls.

If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all of them

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:03:32 +0000

On 3/13/2012 9:07 PM, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> “Josh” wrote in message
> news:jjojqa$l5s$1 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>> On 3/13/2012 7:00 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> “Josh” wrote in message
>>> news:jjoeps$m8e$2 @&*$?%josh.motzarella.org…
>>>> On 3/13/2012 5:34 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> Deucalion wrote in
>>>>> news:c94vl7hnohjodffnbl6l92ul2t0a43mt36 @&*$?%4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What makes you think that the Church has any right to tell the
>>>>>> insurance company how to conduct their business?
>>>>>
>>>>> They don’t and haven’t. They have simply said that they will not
>>>>> accept
>>>>> artificial birth control in the employee health plan since it goes
>>>>> against the tenets of the church and they are the ones paying the
>>>>> premiums.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like they are telling the insurance company how to conduct
>>>> their business to me, namely the church says the insurance company
>>>> cannot add a policy rider directly with the employee for free birth
>>>> control.
>>>
>>> That is correct. Neither the employee nor the insurance company has any
>>> authorization to change the terms of the contract the Church made with
>>> the insurance company. Which, BTW, is what a rider does.
>>>
>>> Rider – endorsement to an insurance policy that modifies clauses and
>>> provisions of the policy, including or excluding coverage.
>>>
>>> …or do you think other people should be allowed to alter the terms of
>>> a contract you’re involved in without your permission?
>>
>> When the government lawfully mandates it, yes. Is this mandate
>> lawful? I don’t know. My point above being only that the religious
>> rights of the employer aren’t the only thing at stake in this case.
>>
>
> Yes they are! Nothing else matters. Well, the President of the United
> States telling a private company what it _must_ provide matters to those
> of us that think the Constitution actually matters, but the only issue
> here is that the church _not_ be forced to provide coverage for service
> that it finds offensive to the very core of the church.
>
> If some are going to scream that a privately installed and maintained
> Cross on a hilltop someplace violates the separation clause because
> religion is too close to government, then surely the same screamers
> should be calling the ACLU 24/7/365 over government telling a church
> what religious practices it must violate as it serves its employees.
>
> You cannot look at this any other way than the government telling
> religion that it has no right to its free expression thereof.
>
>
>
>> Consider this hypothetical. An Amish objects to paying into his
>> employees’ Social Security on religious grounds. But, the employee
>> has a statutory right to have those payments made. Who wins the case
>> if the Amish employer sues the government?
>
> The Amish object to social security? Really?

So because the Liberals already violate the constitution they feel it
should be easy to violate the constitution some more and force religions
to use their NON profits and other endeavors to provide what violates
their religious tenets?

That would mean that we can force all Mosques and their NON profits and
“Islamic community centers” to *HIRE WOMEN* and provide medical
insurance for Jews to get health care. They seem to be
“discriminating” against their Jewish friends.

That Black Church that Obama was at for 20 years, well we will just have
to look into their lack of hiring and paying health care for Asians and
Mexicans….

If the Government can get into the Religions business lets get into all
of them.

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

admin — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:22:01 +0000

On 2/21/2012 12:52 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Feb 21, 10:31 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 2/20/2012 3:57 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 20, 2:42 pm, Michael Gordge wrote:
>>>> On Feb 20, 11:41 pm, “Sid9″ wrote:
>>
>>>>> Capitalism is not a political system,
>>
>>>> Yes it is dopey, it is a social system in which the government is
>>>> exclusively devoted to the protection of individual rights, including
>>>> property rights, and therefore in which there exists absolutely no
>>>> government intervention in the economy.
>>
>>>> And you dont and you cant have an economy without trade and “no
>>>> intervention in the economy” means no intervention in trade, by the
>>>> state, it is known as trading freely, free trade.
>>
>>>> MG
>>
>>> capitalism is a economic system, that requires a robust democracy to
>>> make it work. otherwise you would have somalia.
>>
>> Somalia is communist! It may be collapsed communism like all the rest
>> of the Socialist States before it but it is still the remains of
>> Communist/Socialist rule.
>>
>> Somalia is what communism does to a people, it isn’t what Capitalism did
>> to them.
>>
>
>
>
> i rarely answer you because its quite apparent you are insane, but
> you hit it right. libertarians are really marxists in disguise, they
> are for the destruction of the state.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again.

I generally ignore that so many of you are insane, I accept you as you
are. MY ideas are 99% on the spot, occasionally I get a hair brained
idea but I like to have them as well as the good ideas. I need to laugh
too.

And you missed it, Marxists pretend to be Libertarians and Marxism
destroys peoples lives.

The government forces those who can to do for those who can’t, it is the Liberal Progressive philosophy.

admin — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 03:26:37 +0000

On 2/12/2012 3:31 PM, @&*$?%Jurgis.net">Yoorghis @&*$?%Jurgis.net wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 13:40:41 -0500, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>
>>
>> The government forces those who “can”, to do for those who “can’t”, it
>> is the Liberal Progressive philosophy.
>
> No, wrong again, ShoddyLoon
>
> It is a rational, moral, ethical and legal use of government to deal
> with social problems.
>
> THis nation was founded on “liberal/progressive” philosophy”,
> maintained the Union by use of “liberal/progressive” philosophy”, buit
> up this nation to greatness by use of “liberal/progressive”
> philosophy”, and in all the generations since the inception—no
> conservative policy, program, or agenda has ever did anything good.
>
> The historical legacy of conservative/loonytarian c&*$?%p is opposition,
> and reactionary behavior.
>
You are so confused that you need years of education and therapy to
untangle the cluster- f&*$?%k you contend is a cogent thought.

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.

the fact is that the S&P 500 has achieved a total return of just 1.2% annually over the past 12 years

admin — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:59:59 +0000

On 2/2/2012 1:02 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>>> > > > thank god social security is not in the stock market where it can be
>>> > > > stolen by anti-capitalist hucksters:

Social Security is Money stolen by Socialist government hucksters,
they’re using laws and government guns to back up their threat to, hand
over the money or die.

They are Jim Crow laws>>>just as skin color is DNA so is longevity DNA, and that means Liberalism/Socialism is based on Bigoted discrimination of fellow humans.>>>>They are Jim Crow laws

admin — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:21:51 +0000

On 1/22/2012 2:58 PM, SilentOtto wrote:
> On Jan 22, 12:15 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 1/22/2012 1:29 AM, SilentOtto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 21, 3:44 pm, Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>> In article
>>>> <95918c1d-d230-4580-a647-96c9f165d…@v14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>>> SilentOtto wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 21, 1:38 pm, Bob Crachet < @newspi.rit> wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/21/2012 1:10 PM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Yesterday news was that Scientist had determined that the hole in the
>>>>>> ozone layer, over the Antarctic was caused by cold weather.
>>>>>> The loonies have agendas and won’t be confused by logic and fact.
>>>>>> Anyone every had Freon, the old fashioned refrigerant leak out saw that
>>>>>> it sank to the ground. Most of it was broken up the environment, Very
>>>>>> little made it to the Antarctic.
>>
>>>>> The tobacco companies managed to confuse the matter of the health
>>>>> risks connected to smoking for nearly thirty years.
>>
>>>>> But, in the end, they lost and lost big time.
>>
>>>> Irrelevant analogy. One has nothing to do with the other.
>>
>>> Of course it does, rightard.
>>
>>> Those with a vested interest in denying AWG have engaged the exact
>>> same deliberately dishonest tactics that tobacco companies used to
>>> deny the overwhelming scientific consensus that smoking was connected
>>> to serious health risks.
>>
>>> They lie, obfuscate data, engage in cherry picking, draw false
>>> conclusions, pay so-called “experts” to misrepresent the nature and
>>> state of the science, demonize their opposition, assign false motives
>>> and do everything else the tobacco companies did to create confusion
>>> about the issue in the public mind.
>>
>>>> Admittedly, this species of fallacy is typical of the “global warming
>>>> debate.”
>>
>>> Perhaps your accusations of “fallacy” would be more persuasive had I
>>> not already seen this game played out before.
>>
>>>>> Soon, the actual environmental effects of AGW will start manifesting
>>>>> in earnest, and the global warming deniers will lose just as big as
>>>>> the tobacco companies did.
>>
>>>> The models don’t work.
>>
>>>> They haven’t suddenly begun to work, and they may never begin doing so.
>>
>>>> Your problem is, even if the predictions fail miserably, year after
>>>> year, even for fifteen or more years, never can any of these failures
>>>> invalidate the predictions and the foundational theory.
>>
>>>> “Just wait until next year…”
>>
>>> The only real problem with the models is that they consistently
>>> underestimate the feedback effect, which is, justifiably, extremely
>>> difficult to quantify.
>>
>>> Ultimately, the Achilles heel of denialism is that the main
>>> predictions of the science surrounding AWG are coming to pass.
>>
>>> You’ll notice that while energy companies are continuing to publicly
>>> deny the reality of AWG, that’s not stopping them from pressuring
>>> various governments to assert offshore mineral rights in the Arctic.
>>
>>> The proof of their duplicity is in the pudding, rightard.
>>
>> They NOW believe the formaldehyde in the cigarette is connected to the
>> cancer….
>
> No, rightard.
>
> They NOW believe that LOTS of things in cigarette smoke are connected
> to cancer, not just formaldehyde.
>
>> And since formaldehyde is everywhere, can you tell us whether it’s the
>> formaldehyde in the cigarette that somehow creates cancer or the other
>> formaldehyde in life you contacted that is causing the cancer.
>
> Name other sources where formaldehyde is delivered into the body in
> similar concentrations to that delivered by cigarette smoke.
>
> When it comes to carcinogens, amount -does- appear to matter,
> rightard.
>
>> Then can you tell us why some people get cancer while others don’t and
>> is that because of formaldehyde or DNA.
>
> For the terms of this discussion, it’s irrelevant.
>
> Specifically speaking, the science says that smoking will -increase
> one’s risk- of contracting cancer, not that all smokers will get
> cancer.
>
> Further, that’s the -exact- same thing that privately funded tobacco
> company research showed, and is one of the reasons that they choose to
> suppress that research, while at the same time they publicly claimed
> that the link between smoking and cancer was unconfirmed and suggested
> that those who had conducted studies showing otherwise were engaged in
> flawed research, were attempting social engineering aimed at taking
> away one’s freedom, were disgruntled former employees, were chasing
> research grants or had some other ulterior motive that had nothing to
> do with discovering the actual risks associated with smoking.
>
> Man… That sounds familiar, doesn’t it rightard?
>
>> Then tell us why banning cigarettes would stop cancer.
>
> Straw man. Nobody from the scientific community has -ever- made that
> claim, rightard.
>
>> Wouldn’t you need
>> to know what causes it and stop that? For instance the formaldehyde
>> might be in your carpet… Should you ban carpet?
>
> You’re suggesting that companies should be allowed to sell carpet that
> their own internal research shows releases hazardous levels of
> carcinogens while concealing that fact from the general public and
> denying independent studies that reach a conclusion that they already
> know to be true from their own internal research?
>
> How typically rightarded of you.
>
>> What about low or NO formaldehyde cigarettes?
>
> What about them, rightard?
>
> This isn’t about selling a hazardous product as much as it’s about
> selling a hazardous product while LYING about the associated risks
> that they KNEW existed, yet denied.
>
> Hey… I’ve an idea.
>
> How about I sell you some aspirin capsules that contain the advertised
> amount of aspirin, (I wouldn’t want to be accused of false
> advertising) but use rat poison as a filler?
>

I can buy my own rat poison and it’s taxed less than cigarettes you
f&*$?%g idiot.

> That shouldn’t be a problem for you, right?

NO because I expect it from the likes of you and that’s why government
should stay away from my products, the government employs scum like you.

> After all, the internal research I’ve conducted and released publicly
> shows that there is no conclusive link between ingesting the rat
> poison in my capsules and dying.

Good…. sell some and by tomorrow you would be hanging from a tree in
front of your home. people would find out and they would get justice.

> Now, while it’s true that independent studies strongly and
> overwhelming disagree with the conclusions of my publicly released
> studies, and show a conclusive link between taking rat poison and
> dying…

Tylenol was under the gun by the public and they didn’t even put the
poison in the pills. The guy in China that used the wrong product and
poisoned the Chinese dog food that was sold in America, conveniently
committed “suicide”…..

> And, the internal research I’ve conducted and kept hidden from public
> scrutiny show that rat poison is indeed deadly…

Only to rats or in large doses to humans, and because I understand that
water in too large a dose is deadly also…

…tell us will you ever drink any water again since it’s deadly in
large doses. NO s&*$?%t dim bulb, people die from ingesting too much water.

> As I’m publicly denying any link between eating the rat poison in my
> aspirin capsules and dying, there shouldn’t be any problem with
> putting rat poison in aspirin capsules and selling it to you.

NONE at all, I plan to eat your aspirin when I am already dying so that
my family and estate can sue you for my death 3 days early. I hope you
plan to have plenty of really good lawyers.

> Right, rightard?

A&*$?%e.

> That should be OK with you if you think what the tobacco companies did
> was acceptable.

We called them coffin nails and have done so from the 1920 and probably
long before that. If you thought it was good for you to smoke, then you
deserve a Darwin award and we need not pine our loss to humanity.

Do we ban/tax rat poison because it can kill you, do we bam water
because it can kill you?

> As to the rest your rightard rant…
>
> It maxed out my rightardedness meter, so I’ll have to devote my
> remaining usenet time to cleaning my meter rather than responding to
> the remainder your post.
>
> Heh heh…
>
> Lying racist rightard socialists…
>
> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.

So “you” are saying there is a limit to the lies that you Liberals can
tell at one time?

That’s new information about Liberals that I had no idea existed….

I always thought the lies were limitless coming from Liberals.

>> You Liberals already have discriminatory laws and government affirmative
>> actions that choose winners and losers by their DNA, for instance you
>> have Social Security.
>>
>> Like cigarettes you seem to think that discriminating and bigotry
>> against people on a basis of their DNA is acceptable. Just look at
>> Social Security where you penalize people whose DNA is for a short life,
>> with paying a Social Security tax, and then you give that money to those
>> with a DNA that are predisposed for a longer life.
>>
>> Clear discrimination just as skin color is in DNA so is longevity in
>> your DNA, and that means Liberalism/Socialism is based on Bigoted
>> discrimination of fellow humans. *They are Jim Crow laws* all over
>> again, Social Security and Smoking laws and education laws and funding
>> and MORE….
>>
>> If you can take money from people as a tax to *REDISTRIBUTE* you can
>> also take a chicken or bag of grain as in days of old or a kidney, and
>> that means that you can steal from people with DNA that gave them a
>> healthy kidney and give to those that their DNA gave weak kidneys. And
>> remember that “you” Liberals think that government can tax solely for
>> the purpose of redistribution as in ObamaCare. And you have no concerns
>> about discrimination by government, and you ignore the constitution.
>> That makes it easy for government to justify their affirmative action
>> programs. Suppose they have a health care Affirmative action plan that
>> includes transplants of kidneys?
>>
>> To make life *FAIR* and *EQUAL* in its outcome, redistribution of all
>> things is needed(Social Justice) so when you are taken off the street
>> and taxed for your good health and become an affirmative action
>> ObamaCare patient donor, remember the kidney you are paying taxes with
>> was never really your own in a Socialist society. And keep in mind it
>> will keep someone more important than you alive. Because when it comes
>> to Socialism, the needs of the many out weighs the needs of the one, so
>> your kidney will be much more wisely used by someone that contributes
>> more than you to the many socialists needs. In other words the BIG
>> IMPORTANT POLITICAL MEMBERS are far more important than the dime a dozen
>> workers.
>>
>> You will become an organ supply system to keep the important people
>> alive…. Maybe you are already?

I chuckled that you couldn’t even attempt this part where you know again
you are guilty as charged and you have no Liberal talking points,
because I have only posted it here a few times and there have been no
Liberal think tanks that have ever sent out Liberal talking points on it.

But it was fun to see you react to the two points. You spew the party
dogma for one and are stumped when there is NO Democrat party talking point.

I expected no less.

Homeland Security monitors journalists < < < GO NWO!!!

admin — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 15:50:45 +0000

On 1/10/2012 3:50 AM, Möebius Pretzel wrote:
> Homeland Security monitors journalists

It’s about time…..

Now you combine that with Obama’s new ability to use the military to
lock people up as terrorist suspects and hold them with NO trial and and
no constitutional rights, it means that the MEDIA will be disappearing
when a good *RIGHT WING* PRESIDENT gets into office next year.

The Liberal Press will disappear, literally.

>
> Under the National Operations Center (NOC)’s Media Monitoring Initiative
> that came out of DHS headquarters in November, Washington has the
> written permission to retain data on users of social media and online
> networking platforms.
>
> Specifically, the DHS announced the NCO and its Office of Operations
> Coordination and Planning (OPS) can collect personal information from
> news anchors, journalists, reporters or anyone who may use “traditional
> and/or social media in real time to keep their audience situationally
> aware and informed.”
>
> http://rt.com/usa/news/homeland-security-journalists-monitoring-321/
>
> ——————————————————————–
>
> End the corporate, fascist police state. Ron Paul 2012.

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?

McCain endorses Romney, Look forward to Newt surging in the polls – McCain, McLib, McHealtcare

admin — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:58:52 +0000

On 1/9/2012 12:39 AM, RichTravsky wrote:
> emoneyjoe wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:25:15 -0700, RichTravsky
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> “CB@PrayForMe.com” wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 12:28:53 -0800, MattB
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Jan 2012 11:49:38 -0800 (PST), Phlip >>>>> 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 ( /’fÃ¦??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?

You were just crowing about car sales being up…. who bought those
cars, was it the poor?

You believe in selling cars but you want to take away the money people
used to buy cars?

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?

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.

You are anti America and PRO Socialist.

It’s real easy to see who you are.

It began when Obama threatened industry with social justice

admin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:02:11 +0000

On 1/4/2012 5:47 PM, Lamont Cranston wrote:
> On 1/4/2012 2:02 PM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 17:07:43 -0800, Lamont Cranston
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/3/2012 3:17 PM, @&*$?%PrayForMe.com">CB @&*$?%PrayForMe.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Hussein? He was hung in Iraq. How did you miss it?
>>
>> What’s Oboobuh’s middle name?
>
> I have never heard of anybody named “Oboobuh.”

You lead a sheltered life!

Black Church Rightful Owner of KKK Store

admin — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 17:28:18 +0000

On 1/3/2012 11:36 PM, Dakota wrote:
> On 1/3/2012 6:24 PM, Topaz wrote:
>>
>>
>> Here are some quotes from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
>> after the heading Ku Klux Klan:
>>
>> “Ku Klux Klan, the name of an American secret association of Southern
>> whites united for self-protection and to oppose the Reconstruction
>> measures of the United States Congress”
>>
>> “The various causes assigned for the origin and development of
>> this movement were: the absence of stable government in the South for
>> several years after the Civil War; the corrupt and tyrannical rule of
>> the alien, renegade and negro, and the belief that it was supported by
>> the Federal troops which controlled elections and legislative bodies;
>> the disfranchisement of whites; the spread of ideas of social and
>> political equality among the negroes; fear of negro insurrections; the
>> arming of negro militia and the disarming of whites; outrages upon
>> white women by black men”
>>
>> “The constitutions and rituals of these secret orders have
>> declarations of principles, of which the following are characteristic:
>> to protect and succour the weak and unfortunate, especially the widows
>> and orphans of Confederate soldiers; to protect members of the white
>> race in life, honour and property from the encroachments of the
>> blacks”
>>
>> “To control the negro the Klan played upon his superstitious
>> fears by having night patrols, parades and drills of silent horsemen
>> covered with white sheets, carrying skulls with coals of fire for
>> eyes”
>>
>> “the Ku Klux movement went on until it accomplished its object by
>> giving protection to the whites, reducing the blacks to order,
>> replacing the whites in control of society and state, expelling the
>> worst of the carpet-baggers and scalawags, and nullifying those laws
>> of Congress which had resulted in placing the Southern whites under
>> the control of a party composed principally of ex-slaves.”
>>
>> http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com
>>
>> http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com
>
> Gee. A racist article and links to three kook sites. You must be an
> racist moron. Please don’t vote. Please don’t breed. Plonk. Bye now.

Since when is quoting the FACTS a racist act?

That’s the Liberal Progressive….. you just call what ever you want,
to be racist.

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!

Can you find the non-Hispanic white kid in the photo?

admin — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:11:48 +0000

On 12/17/2011 3:39 PM, J&*$?%a wrote:
>
>
> “ R&*$?%d” wrote in message news:9l49lkFk8cU1 @&*$?%mid.individual.net…
>
> J&*$?%a wrote
>> walt tonne wrote Hisler c&*$?%s.net> wrote
>
>>> The “I have a Dream Foundation” is featured in this article in the
>>> local Boulder newspaper. I noticed that the comments following the
>>> article ask stuff like “is this for Mexicans?” or “is being an
>>> illegal immigrant a requirement for free stuff.” Americans are
>>> waking up and seeing how so many foundations, charities and churches
>>> are now directing all their efforts at helping illegal aliens in
>>> their demographic war against American citizens.
>
>>> http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_19559539?source=rss
>
>> Removing all illegal aliens would unleash an economic and social
>> renaissance.
>
> Fantasy.
>
> It would drastically slash consumer spending, because all those wouldnt
> be spending anymore.
>
>> And how do we do that?
>
> Not even possible.
>
> Even if the cops demanded proof that you werent an illegal in house to
> house searches, it just
> wouldnt work, there are just too many of them and no one will spend what
> it would cost anyway.

That’s NOT what you say about drugs and it is the same reality……

Do you give up on religion being practiced on government property? For
some reason those two are too important to ignore but the illegals are
just too many so you can ignore it.

Why don’t you just stop enforcing laws on guns, it is hopeless to stop
people from buying the guns they want, you gave up on illegals and yet
you chase illegals that buy guns……. oooopppssss “my bad” you don’t
chase illegals that buy guns you only chase American citizens that buy
guns. My proof is “Fast and Furious”.

> So, why are our politicians trying to solve a problem, that cannot be
> solved, the way they are trying to solve the problem?

Why did the Socialist cross the road? Because all his other freedoms had
already been stolen under the guise of protecting him from every other
danger.

( Capitalist America) vs (Socialist America)

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 20:11:50 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

On 12/9/2011 1:54 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
> On Dec 9, 9:38 am, BeamMeUpScotty
> wrote:
>> On 12/8/2011 11:45 PM, columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 8:24 pm, BeamMeUpScotty
>>> wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/5a79bfb7fd8ce74b
>>
>>> laughing, wow i suspect gingrich will break/melt down in the same
>>> manner you did above, when he is confronted with his own idiocy.
>>
>> How much income and sales and other miscellaneous tax did you pay this
>> month so that you could buy your cable TV….
>>
>> How much did the actual cable service cost, not including the tax you
>> paid when you earned the money and when you spent the money.
>>
>> You paid
>>
>> Income tax 20-38%
>> SS tax 7.5%
>> medicare tax 2%
>> unemployment tax ?
>> state income tax 7%
>> state sales tax 8%
>> corporate income…. tax a reasonable 8% profit at 35%
>> misc tele-comm tax 7%
>>
>> You had to earn enough money to pay all these taxes for the privilege of
>> buying your cable.
>>
>> take your cable bill and calculate what each cost you.
>>
>> Then deduct it from your cable bill, what is left is what actual cable
>> with NO government costs.

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

The problem is government NOT the corporation.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you had to earn so
that you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to earn $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about a 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

Are you sure? Why would you be so defensive when I was simply showing
you what part of that product is NOT the cost of the product but is the
cost of government. You must be worried at the conclusion others will
take from this fact.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

> Thirdly the infrastructure used by corporations
> (internet, and non-internet) to conduct commerce is possible because
> of the national investments made from the tax revenues you want to
> eliminate.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.
CHEAP COMPUTERS WERE NOT GOVERNMENT PRODUCED but
*without cheap computers* there would be NO private sector internet.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That “plan” or idea was expanded and
improved and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became
the internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pays the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smarts to make the things they ask for.

Who invented DRONES….. was it R/C model airplane builders or
government?

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama already got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and
he has NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for
infrastructure to fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

Yet raising and adding taxes doesn’t devastate “Private business” and
the private sector economy? Interesting how YOU BELIEVE that taxes are
a one way street. Taxes are GOOD for everyone? Taxes can’t devastate
the private sector but less taxes will absolutely devastate the
government?

*What a crock of s&*$?%t you are peddling*

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

Your plan DIVIDES THE NATION and makes half the Nation have zero
interest in the economy and the success of the National economy because
they get government money regardless of economic health(They live in
Socialist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.

making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

admin — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 19:49:40 +0000

Making everyone responsible and partners and dependent on success of the
Nation(They live in Capitalist America) THE REST GETTING FREE GOVERNMENT
MONEY(They live in Socialist America).

> First, you are *assuming* that reduction of fixed costs associated
> with an entity would 100% directly translate to reduction of a price
> charged for a service, that is very doubtful.

NO, I was showing you how much tax you pay….. by showing how much
you have to earn, to pay for $100 of product.

Not that the price was going to be more or less dependent on taxes being
more or less. You are out in the weeds with your suggestion.

> In my opinion the first
> thing that would likely happen is such reductions would be factored
> into market expectations i.e. performance per share.

Why do I care? I was showing you one thing, your fear took you down this
road.

> You have not
> produced a reduced price schedule from a company based on such a tax
> scheme, you only have theoretical market responses offered by
> political hacks or right wing think tanks.

I predict NOTHING… I was showing how many dollars you earned so that
you could buy $100 of product.

I did it for mine and I need to ear $150 to buy $92 worth of cable TV.

That is about 50% tax rate.

> Secondly, reduction of
> government revenues would have a negative impact by shrinking the
> social safety net during a time of global recession.

> Maintaining a
> strong social safety net keeps a workforce employable, and able to
> market their skills in todays information based workplace when the
> economy picks up.

It also holds back the economy.

Texas instruments created the technology….. Computers are NOT
government and neither is TV or telephone and neither is manned flight.

Government stole the technology and used it poorly and tried to make an
indestructible military network. That plan was expanded and improved
and redesigned by the private market and PORNOGRAPHY and became the
internet. So before you spread the LIE that government created
everything, remember that they stole most of it from private industry.

The government pay the private sector to build their stuff because
Government hasn’t got the smart to make the things they ask for.

> Elimination of such revenues would reduce the ability to
> invest and repair infrastructure.

And eliminate waste and theft and misuse.

Obama got trillions of tax dollars to repair infrastructure and he has
NOTHING to show for it and wants trillions more for infrastructure to
fix what he has already been paid to fix but didn’t.

> Lastly, elimination of state sales
> tax in states like california would be devastating to local schools,

> and public services. Your type of economics favors the very wealthy,
> and hurts our country.

MY PLANS help the Nation while making everyone responsible and partners
and dependent on success of the Nation(They live in Capitalist America).

John Edwards was correct, there are TWO AMERICAS, he was wrong on what
they are. One is Capitalist America where we participate in the
economy, the other America is Socialist America where they Live off the
Government.