OT: If Kerry is elected...

[Clarence]

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in message
news:kum5n0d162teneskcev7ptgafgs9npvf6e@4ax.com...

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 20:33:59 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message
news0h5n0dilgj4h4nrfsahln1r334babasrn@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:03:16 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highlandSNIPtechTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote in
message
news:mqd5n0th6dksonntg937fpmf7dvs0qj3d5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:32:31 +0200, "Frank Bemelman"
f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote:
Go fuck yourself and
perform a pre-emptive strick on your own person.

Very elegantly put. You really have a way with words, Frank.
John

Wow, and he even miss-spelled "strike", he's really coming unhinged!

It's really not nice, I suppose, for us to needle people like this
into frenzies. And it's so easy that it's not a lot of sport, either.

John

Tell that to the mob who attacked me!



Frank and Fred are not a mob. They're probably the same person.
John

TAT is possible I suppose, but that also gives me a better target.

Besides, I wasn't referring to THIS thread.

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:55:25 -0500, John Fields wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:23:13 GMT, Rich Grise <rich@example.net> wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 16:02:11 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in
news:4170fb15$0$36861$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl:

"Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov.> schreef in bericht

Yes, and a while ago too. But does that make it okay to create
"piles of dead bodies" as long as the piles are smaller?


In that case the US should never have made the Normandy invasion or freed
Europe,then.Just left you all to Hitler.

Once again, you've got it ass-upside-down.

The US is now doing to Iraq what your friend did to France, after
doing Afghanistan like he did Poland. The ones the neocons are
calling "terrorists" are actually "the resistance."

But apparently doublethink is necessary for the neocons to
rationalize mass murder.

Remember who the invader is, here.

---
A 'pre-emptive strike' to excise a cancer which has been allowed to
grow, unchecked, for decades is a bad thing?

Yes, John Fields. A pre-emptive strike is a bad thing, regardless
what excuse you give, because it is nothing but murder.

Rationalize it all you want - you're the one that's going to have
to face your own judgement one day.

May God have mercy on your soul.
Rich

 

[Clarence]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172de7f$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

<snip>

Whatever. Dipshit.

If you have no manners there is nothing of value you can say that would be
believed anyway.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:zgBcd.6988$6q2.5259@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172de7f$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

snip

Whatever. Dipshit.


If you have no manners there is nothing of value you can say that would be
believed anyway.

Take the easy exit, eh?

Dipshit.

--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Robert Monsen]

Tom Seim wrote:

Being opposed to something is a good way to get things started. But
it's not going to get you across the finish line. By finish line I
mean actually accomplishing something tangible - not just getting
elected.

I don't see that unanimity of purpose in liberals that exists amongst
conservatives. Liberals would be well advised to tone down the hate
and start thinking about what they want to accomplish. When you listen
to liberals talk about accomplishments they point out civil rights and
voting rights. I'm sorry, but this 25-30 years ago; what have you done
for me lately (like in the current generation). Not much. Bill Clinton
declared that there would be more legislation passed than since FDR
took office. Then Hillary took over.

I've mentioned this before: what the liberals need is the equivalent
of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. This was explicit, short and
succinct. And it was something by which they could be easily measured.
I am certain, however, that this will not happen: that would require
thought, cooperation and agreement. Not exactly the left's forte.

I'd argue that the liberal agenda is still active and alive; its just
that the "Contract with America" took aim at it, and used the religious
beliefs and greed of much of the populace, along with a vastly improved
machine for disinformation, as their weapon of choice.

Most of the 'majority' of people who vote Republican have been
hoodwinked into thinking that they will be better off with lower taxes,
less government, less control on 'their rights'. The reality,
unfortunately for them, is that they are far better off with a
progressive tax system, and more public control over just what
corporations are doing. Education is better off. Infrastructure is
better off. Health care is better off. The environment is better off.
Hell, the MILITARY is better off.

The 'great republican idea', the great neocon ideal that you praise, is
really just a shell game: republican leaders such as Gingrich realized
that they could convince people to vote for them if they merged their
'starve the welfare state' agenda with a 'stop abortion, and allow
prayer in schools' message. This was the merging of the traditional
republican party with the "Robertson Republicans". We've seen the
logical outcome in GeeDubya, who is, really, the Robertson Republican
figurehead who does not make policy. He is the pretty boy cheerleader
for a gang of capitalists, who have arbitrarily decided that what is
good for them, economically, is good for the country, and eventually
good for the world.

We've now seen the results of their policy, first in the internet
bubble, which was caused by the Gingrich congress dismembering all
meaningful controls on corporations, and then in Iraq, where this theory
was brought to its ultimate test: no government control = a flowering of
capitalism. Well, just as the internet bubble brought about widespread
corporate looting, so also has the lack of government in Iraq failed to
bring about a capitalistic renaissance. There is just lawlessness,
destruction, and chaos. This is, unfortunately, the logical and
ultimately destructive result of these neocon policies.

The sooner people realize that they are being taken advantage of by
these 'captains of industry', people such as Rupert Murdoch, Richard
Mellon Scaife, Sun Myung Moon, and the rest, the sooner we can get back
to the real business of mankind, which is to build a paradise for all of
us, every man, woman, and child.

Thats the liberal ideal. Thats the idea that, unconsiously or
consiously, we all work for, even these capitalists with their
wrong-headed ideas of control. We all know in our hearts and minds that
hunger and poverty and disease can be eliminated. We've seen its
possibility blossom, in our lifetimes. We all know that we can rebuild
the garden. Its almost within reach. We just need to stretch out our
collective hands...

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Frank Bemelman]

"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
newsgCcd.31811$QJ3.3325@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172e8d8$0$42417$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
"Clarence" <no@No.com> schreef in bericht
news:zgBcd.6988$6q2.5259@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172de7f$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

snip

Whatever. Dipshit.
If you have no manners there is nothing of value you can say that
would be
believed anyway.

Take the easy exit, eh?
Dipshit.


You are the one opting to use foul language rather than your brain.

I do not associate with people who lack all social graces.

Yes, it is terrible eh, foul language?

Dipshit.


--
Thanks, Frank.
(remove 'x' and 'invalid' when replying by email)

 

[Clarence]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172f144$0$25965$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

Yes, it is terrible eh, foul language?

Dipshit.

The nominal level of civility of "Frank Bemelman" revealed!

 

[John Fields]

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 21:14:07 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:4172de7f$0$566$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

snip

Whatever. Dipshit.


If you have no manners there is nothing of value you can say that would be
believed anyway.

---
'Manners', to you, seems to be akin to asking for someone's
permission to kill them before you go for it. Except, of course,
you're excused from following your own rules when your intent is to
off those "murderers" you spoke of earlier?

It also seems to be a convenient way for you to slough off what you
don't want to have to confront by denigrating the messenger's demeanor
if the content of the delivered message doesn't please you.

You're a fucking idiot, and you should believe that, whether it was
delivered politely enough for you or not.

--
John Fields

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in
news:6yycd.31735$QJ3.26236@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message
newsan.2004.10.17.06.52.59.635365@example.net...
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 23:40:07 +0000, Clarence wrote:


"Robert Monsen" <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vHfcd.377445$mD.44162@attbi_s02...
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:00:15 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


Here is what he said:

KERRY: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were
to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would
tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was
born as.



It was an astonishing, not to mention tasteless, thing to say in
a Presidential debate. Nobody seems to be able to figure out why
he said it, not even his own people.

John



The backlash on this is purely political. The republicans are
again trying to change the subject from those things they can't
win on, like Foreign Policy and Domestic Issues, to Kerry being a
'Bad Man' for bringing up something that Dick himself made an
issue out of.

The "Backlash" as you call it, is moral!

Ah, so now the truth comes out. It really _is_ a religious crusade.

Moral, NOT religious! NOTE the difference, it is important!

Where does it say that all morals must come from a religion?

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Rolavine]

It will show that American voters are smart enough to not piss on themselves
two times in a row.

Rocky

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Julie wrote:

Fred Bloggs wrote:

Tom Seim wrote:


John Kerry's lies about the activities of the Swift boats were part of
a larger pattern of deception. As a leader of the Vietnam Veterans
Against the War (VVAW), Kerry testified before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971, telling the Senators and a
national audience that American troops "...had personally raped, cut
off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human
genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies,
randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and
generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..." and accused the
U.S. military of committing war crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the
full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Now it's all coming back to me- Kerry omitted the public castrations ,
usually performed by South Vietnamese interrogators, to get the other
detainees and/or villagers to give up the goods. Then there were the
infamous helicopter rides- climb to several hundred feet and throw
prisoner #1 out the door, then move onto to prisoner #2, etc...And don't
forget about the Agent Orange fiasco- are you so dumb you think American
GIs were the only ones affected by that stuff- hell we washed the
Vietnamese in it.


Fred -- I estimate that you spent 2-3 hrs. in this thread alone today, is that
about right?

I don't keep track of the time- my computer is on all the time- we do
multitask these days. Seim is a little fairy draft dodger so he knows
nothing about the atrocities committed by the US in Vietnam. Kerry's
charges were accurate- and many of those POWs whining about him are
liars- they know damned well that many war crimes were committed- most
of them were big yahoo cowboys strafing and bombing with reckless
abandon until they got shot down and captured- then all of a sudden they
are these highly principled freedom fighters?- haha- a crock of bullshit
if I ever heard it.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <20041024033121.18077.00005776@mb-m03.aol.com>,
Rolavine <rolavine@aol.com> wrote:

It will show that American voters are smart enough to not piss on themselves
two times in a row.

Nixon got re-elected.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:faHcd.259202$MQ5.39637@attbi_s52:

Jim Yanik wrote:
drivel

You can't refute anything I say, so you resort to name calling. Fine. I
wasn't talking to you anyway, and could care less what you think.

Excuse me,but in this post you neglected to include what "names" I am
alleged to have called you.


Here's the entire post;
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:B8Ccd.409065$Fg5.36432@attbi_s53:

Tom Seim wrote:
Being opposed to something is a good way to get things started. But
it's not going to get you across the finish line. By finish line I
mean actually accomplishing something tangible - not just getting
elected.

I don't see that unanimity of purpose in liberals that exists amongst
conservatives. Liberals would be well advised to tone down the hate
and start thinking about what they want to accomplish. When you listen
to liberals talk about accomplishments they point out civil rights and
voting rights. I'm sorry, but this 25-30 years ago; what have you done
for me lately (like in the current generation). Not much. Bill Clinton
declared that there would be more legislation passed than since FDR
took office. Then Hillary took over.

I've mentioned this before: what the liberals need is the equivalent
of Newt Gingrich's Contract With America. This was explicit, short and
succinct. And it was something by which they could be easily measured.
I am certain, however, that this will not happen: that would require
thought, cooperation and agreement. Not exactly the left's forte.

I'd argue that the liberal agenda is still active and alive; its just
that the "Contract with America" took aim at it, and used the religious
beliefs and greed of much of the populace, along with a vastly improved
machine for disinformation, as their weapon of choice.

Most of the 'majority' of people who vote Republican have been
hoodwinked into thinking that they will be better off with lower taxes,
less government, less control on 'their rights'.

Yes,that's right.A Government's proper duty is to provide a fair playing
field.(after securing the citizens freedom and the country's borders)

The reality,
unfortunately for them, is that they are far better off with a
progressive tax system,

"progressive tax system";another name for socialism or Marxism.


Snip utopian speech.

Thats the liberal ideal. Thats the idea that, unconsiously or
consiously, we all work for, even these capitalists with their
wrong-headed ideas of control. We all know in our hearts and minds that
hunger and poverty and disease can be eliminated. We've seen its
possibility blossom, in our lifetimes. We all know that we can rebuild
the garden. Its almost within reach. We just need to stretch out our
collective hands...

There's another Marxist term;"collective".

Who's this "we" you speak of?


--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net


So where's the "names" ?? I did NOT specifically call you anything.
I noted the use of Marxist terms.

Whatever.
Feel free to killfile me.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Robert Monsen]

Jim Yanik wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:faHcd.259202$MQ5.39637@attbi_s52:


Jim Yanik wrote:
drivel

You can't refute anything I say, so you resort to name calling. Fine. I
wasn't talking to you anyway, and could care less what you think.



Excuse me,but in this post you neglected to include what "names" I am
alleged to have called you.

You are right, you didn't call me names. I was mistaken. You were
calling progressive tax policy 'marxist', which is simply wrong.

You then snipped the gist of my argument, calling it 'utopian speech'
(apparently you didn't bother to read it), and started biting at my
ankles by calling me a marxist for my admittedly somewhat poetic conclusion.

The point of my argument to Mr Seim was that republicans believe they
have a policy, but it's not a policy, it's a strategy. Their strategy is
designed to take power, by fooling the bible belt and the south into
believing that the republican party is on their side, when it's really
working for big business. They vote for Bush, thinking he is a Robertson
republican, and what they really get is a policy designed by Goldwater.

He was also saying that liberals don't have a real vision.

The liberal vision, however, is obvious, as the part you snipped pointed
out. It's that everybody should benefit from the advances of society.
The reason that 'conservatives' think 'liberal' is a dirty word is that
they don't really understand that they are, at heart, already liberal.
The 'republican stragegists' have tried to change the meaning of the
word to be 'elitist snob' for political reasons.

However, the liberal idea has won so completely that, really,
*everybody* is a liberal, *everybody* in America believes that we should
take care of the sick and the aged; that we should help people in need;
and, that we should work toward 'the common good'. That's the goal, and
whether some of us are willing to admit it or not, we all believe it.
Bush seems to believe it; listen to his speeches. The only real
disagreement is how to make this goal happen.

The Goldwater 'program' is to dismantle government, or at least to
cripple it. These guys believe that corporations, not governments,
should get to say what happens, and should drive policy for economic
good. They believe that government is an impediment to a completely free
market, and that a totally free market is the path towards this liberal
utopia where nobody starves, and everybody enjoys the benefits of
society. They quote Adam Smith. Their main idea can be summarised as
this statement: a rising tide carries all boats.

Well, this is where I disagree. It's obvious to anyone who looks that
there are some boats that simply don't rise with the tide. In the last
20 years, wealth has concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority. Tax
policy has been carefully restructured to ensure that this disparity of
wealth continues, and even increases. More people fall into poverty each
year. Real wages are falling. People can't afford health care. The
middle class is being eroded. Without progressive tax policy, this
erosion simply continues unchecked.

Also, these days, this free market dream amounts to 'rule by
corporation'. However, most of us don't vote for the board of directors
of most corporations, and thus they generally aren't accountable to
anyone or anything except the need for profits. Further, they aren't
good stewards of the 'common good', in the form of the global
environment, or even the economic infrastructure. They are social
machines, created to extract and process the environment for the good of
their owners. Any good they do for the public is a byproduct of this
primary activity. Adam Smith could never have conceived of their sheer
power to do this when he wrote "The Wealth of Nations". Adam Smith, who
was a social progressive, would have been a Democrat had he lived today.

Democrats believe that everyone should benefit when society advances,
not just the few. A majority of those bible-belt Robertson republicans
would agree with this, I think. This view is, basically, the Christian
ethic.

Regressive tax policy, and unchecked corporate power, despite the best
intentions of those who are working towards them, is *not* a way to
bring us closer to the goal. It simply does not work. Strong government
control of corporations, and progressive tax policy is what leads to a
better environment, a healthy infrastructure, and a swelling middle
class, which is, in my mind anyway, the right thing to be working towards.

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Robert Monsen]

John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 20:41:00 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:


John Larkin wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 19:00:15 GMT, Robert Monsen
rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote:



Here is what he said:

KERRY: "We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk
to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that
she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.



It was an astonishing, not to mention tasteless, thing to say in a
Presidential debate. Nobody seems to be able to figure out why he said
it, not even his own people.

John



The backlash on this is purely political. The republicans are again
trying to change the subject from those things they can't win on, like
Foreign Policy and Domestic Issues, to Kerry being a 'Bad Man' for
bringing up something that Dick himself made an issue out of.



Cheney was *asked* about his daughter's lesbianism in a TV interview,
and answered very gracefully. He said "the Constitution is for
everybody."

I believe Darth brought it up in the 2000 VP debate.

The public, in a poll, was something like 66% disapproving of Kerry's
reference to Mary Cheney in a Presidential debate. His own staffers
were appalled that he would say something so dumb. As a purely
political move in a national debate, it was stupid; and this guy wants
to be President?

John

It was jarring, I'll admit. However, the indignant backlash is
politically motivated, and it's fading. Making an issue of this will
only accent the split between Bush and Cheney on the constitutional
ammendment. Thus, the bush camp will soon move on, if they haven't already.

--
Regards,
Robert Monsen

"Your Highness, I have no need of this hypothesis."
- Pierre Laplace (1749-1827), to Napoleon,
on why his works on celestial mechanics make no mention of God.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:fKUcd.263470$MQ5.42264@attbi_s52:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> wrote in
news:faHcd.259202$MQ5.39637@attbi_s52:


Jim Yanik wrote:
drivel

You can't refute anything I say, so you resort to name calling. Fine.
I wasn't talking to you anyway, and could care less what you think.



Excuse me,but in this post you neglected to include what "names" I am
alleged to have called you.


You are right, you didn't call me names. I was mistaken. You were
calling progressive tax policy 'marxist', which is simply wrong.

It certainly is not wrong;taxing different people at different rates based
on their wealth is Marxist.

You then snipped the gist of my argument, calling it 'utopian speech'
(apparently you didn't bother to read it), and started biting at my
ankles by calling me a marxist for my admittedly somewhat poetic
conclusion.

Oh,I read it.Except,as posted before,I did NOT call you anything.
I said the *term* you used was Marxist.
Do I need to repost it AGAIN?

The point of my argument to Mr Seim was that republicans believe they
have a policy, but it's not a policy, it's a strategy. Their strategy
is designed to take power, by fooling the bible belt and the south
into believing that the republican party is on their side, when it's
really working for big business. They vote for Bush, thinking he is a
Robertson republican, and what they really get is a policy designed by
Goldwater.

He was also saying that liberals don't have a real vision.

The liberal vision, however, is obvious, as the part you snipped
pointed out. It's that everybody should benefit from the advances of
society. The reason that 'conservatives' think 'liberal' is a dirty
word is that they don't really understand that they are, at heart,
already liberal. The 'republican stragegists' have tried to change the
meaning of the word to be 'elitist snob' for political reasons.

However, the liberal idea has won so completely that, really,
*everybody* is a liberal, *everybody* in America believes that we
should take care of the sick and the aged; that we should help people
in need; and, that we should work toward 'the common good'. That's the
goal, and whether some of us are willing to admit it or not, we all
believe it. Bush seems to believe it; listen to his speeches. The only
real disagreement is how to make this goal happen.

The Goldwater 'program' is to dismantle government, or at least to
cripple it. These guys believe that corporations, not governments,
should get to say what happens, and should drive policy for economic
good. They believe that government is an impediment to a completely
free market, and that a totally free market is the path towards this
liberal utopia where nobody starves, and everybody enjoys the benefits
of society. They quote Adam Smith. Their main idea can be summarised
as this statement: a rising tide carries all boats.

Well, this is where I disagree. It's obvious to anyone who looks that
there are some boats that simply don't rise with the tide.

And they probably never will,regardless.
That does not mean we take money from others and give it to them.

In the last
20 years, wealth has concentrated into the hands of a tiny minority.
Tax policy has been carefully restructured to ensure that this
disparity of wealth continues, and even increases.

You mean like the ESTATE tax,where one cannot transfer their accumulated
wealth to their heirs,without the gov't taking half of it?
Pure Marxism.

More people fall
into poverty each year. Real wages are falling. People can't afford
health care. The middle class is being eroded. Without progressive tax
policy, this erosion simply continues unchecked.

Bull.All that "progressive" tax policy does is fund bigger
government.Government is extremely inefficient and wasteful.It's non-
productive.I suppose you figure that they can get cushy gov't jobs pushing
paper.

Also, these days, this free market dream amounts to 'rule by
corporation'. However, most of us don't vote for the board of
directors of most corporations, and thus they generally aren't
accountable to anyone or anything except the need for profits.
Further, they aren't good stewards of the 'common good', in the form
of the global environment, or even the economic infrastructure. They
are social machines, created to extract and process the environment
for the good of their owners. Any good they do for the public is a
byproduct of this primary activity. Adam Smith could never have
conceived of their sheer power to do this when he wrote "The Wealth of
Nations". Adam Smith, who was a social progressive, would have been a
Democrat had he lived today.

Democrats believe that everyone should benefit when society advances,
not just the few. A majority of those bible-belt Robertson republicans
would agree with this, I think. This view is, basically, the Christian
ethic.

I believe they believe that people should help voluntarily,not forced to by
taxation.I do agree that corporations need to be watched.That's the "fair
playing field" I mentioned earlier.

Regressive tax policy, and unchecked corporate power, despite the best
intentions of those who are working towards them, is *not* a way to
bring us closer to the goal. It simply does not work. Strong
government control of corporations, and progressive tax policy is what
leads to a better environment, a healthy infrastructure, and a
swelling middle class, which is, in my mind anyway, the right thing to
be working towards.

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4173AA01.40809@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

I am a Vietnam veteran. Are you?


Yeah, you and John Edwards.

You use a phony name. Now you claim phony Vietnam service.

You are a disgrace.

Why are you evading the question? Were you or were you not in military
service? Or are you a loudmouthed armchair adventurer and draft dodger
like most of the other hawks?


Having a conversation with a liar is like trying to screw a porcupine
- a lot of pain for no satisfaction.

I will answer your question when you:
1. State your REAL name
2. Identify your service, serial number, dates served, and unit ID.

I don't think I'll get an answer.

I will come and see you in person. What is your address?

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<4171F6BF.7070107@nospam.com>...

Tom Seim wrote:

Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<417194AF.5040604@nospam.com>...


John S. Dyson wrote:


In article <41715BF6.4070907@nospam.com>,
Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com> writes:



Abd-er-Rahman III wrote:



http://www.mypetgoat.com/goatquotes.htm

I do not care much for Bush, but nonetheless must disagree with the
popular analysis of his demeanor in that classroom. His mind was
anything but vacant and he was not looking for guidance. He was clearly
stunned and his mind was racing. The 9/11 attacks were against him as
well as the US.


Note that the timescale for Al Queda attacks shows that the plans were
formulated during the Clinton administration. The attacks weren't really
against any one president, but indeed against the US.

One thing that Bush didn't do is to panic. When the Secret Service
and intelligence agencies got involved, then his flight "all over the nation"
took place. What happened on that day seems to make sense from the
standpoint of cold war strategy, and apparently the plans hadn't
changed during Clinton's regime.

John


I think it runs deeper than that. You might recall that several
terrorist organizations attempted to donate to Bush's 2000 campaign
through front men. It was imperative that the WTC attack occur at the
earliest possible time into the Bush administration to maximize the
ensuing chaos. Terrorism wants Bush to win this election, he is doing
more for them to stir up a hornets nest of American hatred and has
accelerated their schedule for a major fundamentalist state. The last
thing terrorism wants is an intelligent and carefully programmed US
counter-attack that sets the whole world against them.


It's a well known fact that Kim Jon Ill MUCH prefers Kerry over Bush.

That could be- because he does not want to actually *use* his weapons


They problem with Kim is you don't know what he is thinking. Anybody
who would permit his people to resort to eating bark off of trees
(REALLY!) has lost total disconnect with reality.

You don't know the first thing about the situation. Whatever happens, it
will not depend upon your participation- so don't worry about it- fatarse.

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <cl1f3d$gaa$1@blue.rahul.net>,
kensmith@green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) writes:

In article <417321C3.309FF8BB@nospam.com>, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:
Ken Smith wrote:

[....]
The declining economy starting in early yr2000, associated mismanagement
of the big economic bubble.

This is not correct. the economy started to decrease its rate of growth
only in the summer of 2000. The stock market underwent what could be best
described as a mild correction at that time. The stock market tanked
after the election.

A better theory is that business people said "Oh gawd someone from Texas
is the republican candidate, I'm selling out and moving to the rockies.
When Bush got elected they said "Someone who can't even say nuclear and
thinks grits is food got elected, I out of here".


Wake up.

Go back and read what I wrote. You will notice that I was suggesting my
theory that it is related to grit eating begin a more likely theory than
the one suggested by the other poster.

Remember: my own comment was in relation to the mismanagement of the

'Bubble' and not fully controlling the economy. If there was a place for
government/fed manipulation, it didn't happen in the 1998-->>2000 timeframe,
and then we had the bubble burst instead of a sustained, moderate growth.

In general, the government doesn't really control the jobs or the economy,
but the explicit mismanagement did occur during Clinton. Blaming Bush
for the economy is rather ludicrous -- the damage was already done.

John

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Tom Seim wrote:

Won't answer the question, huh. Maybe you're ashamed of what you do-
or don't do. "Aura of personal expertise," kinda like the sound of
that. I'll have to add that to my CV. Sorry, you probably don't know
what a CV is.

There you go again with your pompous attitude. You need to get a clue
that you're one of the most ignorant and unaccomplished nobodies to post
to this group. You think everyone should drop dead because you work for
PNNL/IDL even though you produce no worthwhile contribution- isn't that
so typical of a brainwashed government parasite. We will talk down to
you like the shit you are until you prove otherwise by actually
producing something- so get used to it. I don't give a damn about your
place of employment or your title- you are worthless swine-period- and
that is more than evident from your posts. Take your government
sponsored idea of "prestige"- and shove it deep into your ass- we have
little respect for your end of government around here.


Sorry to hear that you're still out of work, fredfraud.

BTW: Who's "we"?

More of your tired-ass slander- eh- parasite boy? It looks like you're
the one having trouble finding a job. You have been employed by the DOE
scam since you first got out of school- and your CV clearly lacks the
diversity of experience to be found in most mainstream engineering
careers. Looks like your life story is pure *yawn* material all around.