Demand that Obama release his college records! Where is the media?

[Micky]

Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
"academic degrees and honors".

Obama has been fighting desperately to block all access to his college
records. Even his public "thesis" at Columbia mysteriously
disappeared. The media just swallowed the official Obama's "academic
degrees and honors" without checking his actual grades, his scores on
standardized tests, his academic writings if any, etc. All the
decisions to admit Obama to colleges, to give him "academic degrees
and honors" were made by a few unknown individuals. Read about the
racial turmoil at one college where he got his "academic honors". The
race tensions seem to follow Obama wherever he goes.

If Obama's college records fail to meet the requirements for
legitimate academic degrees and honors then Obama will be declared an
academic fraud. Maybe then the media will start vetting Obama on other
issues. Then we will be able to address the biggest fantasies like
Obama's "ability to solve" the financial crisis which requires making
executive decisions. Obama never made a single real executive decision
in his life! How will Obama be able to attract quality people if he
has a long history of attracting and being attracted to the worst
kind? Any Hollywood actor can read a teleprompter and memorize talking
points written by secret handlers.

If Obama gets elected and turns the United States into a war-torn
country like Kenya then his college records will mysteriously leak,
but then it could be too late.

I am asking everybody to request at least one major news network to
make it an election issue. Ask others to do the same. Since Obama has
built his political career around his "academic degrees and honors",
all his college records (complete set of grades, scores on
standardized tests, etc) must be released. Keep in mind that Obama's
supporters have saturated media outlets and internet bandwidth for the
last two years with stories of Obama's "academic degrees and honors".
Now they viciously attack those who want to see Obama's grades and
scores on standardized tests.



Some websites to submit your requests:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/



Some websites to read about Obama's "academic career":
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythical.html
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=307579834298611
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877
http://reason.com/news/show/128461.html

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 5, 9:56*pm, Micky > wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> "academic degrees and honors".
>
> Obama has been fighting desperately to block all access to his college
> records. *Even his public "thesis" at Columbia mysteriously
> disappeared. The media just swallowed the official Obama's "academic
> degrees and honors" without checking his actual grades, his scores on
> standardized tests, his academic writings if any, etc. All the
> decisions to admit Obama to colleges, to give him "academic degrees
> and honors" were made by a few unknown individuals. Read about the
> racial turmoil at one college where he got his "academic honors". The
> race tensions seem to follow Obama wherever he goes.
>
> If Obama's college records fail to meet the requirements for
> legitimate academic degrees and honors then Obama will be declared an
> academic fraud. Maybe then the media will start vetting Obama on other
> issues. Then we will be able to address the biggest fantasies like
> Obama's "ability to solve" the financial crisis which requires making
> executive decisions. Obama never made a single real executive decision
> in his life! How will Obama be able to attract quality people if he
> has a long history of attracting and being attracted to the worst
> kind? Any Hollywood actor can read a teleprompter and memorize talking
> points written by secret handlers.
>
> If Obama gets elected and turns the United States into a war-torn
> country like Kenya then his college records will mysteriously leak,
> but then it could be too late.
>
> I am asking everybody to request at least one major news network to
> make it an election issue. Ask others to do the same. Since Obama has
> built his political career around his "academic degrees and honors",
> all his college records (complete set of grades, scores on
> standardized tests, etc) must be released. Keep in mind that Obama's
> supporters have saturated media outlets and internet bandwidth for the
> last two years with stories of Obama's "academic degrees and honors".
> Now they viciously attack those who want to see Obama's grades and
> scores on standardized tests.
>
> Some websites to submit your requests:
> *http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
> *http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
> *http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
> *http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
> *http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
> *http://www.cbsnews.com/
>
> Some websites to read about Obama's "academic career":
> *http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythica....
> *http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&st...
> *http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/....
> *http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPo...
> *http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877
> *http://reason.com/news/show/128461.html

I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?

[Jürgen Exner]

Micky > wrote:
And this has exactly _WHAT_ to do with dSLRs?

jue

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems The Hysterical Bride > wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:56?pm, Micky > wrote:

>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
>> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
>> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
>> "academic degrees and honors".

[big snip]

> I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?

Since it would be pretty difficult to get lower grades and scores than
a number of recent white presidents, I can't see what the fuss is
about, unless it's about a member of the black slave race getting too
big for his boots.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> "academic degrees and honors".
>


Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.

This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
preposterous lies. McCain refuses to release his medical records and
you are okay with that. Dubya never released his military records and
you are okay with that. You still have not been able to get Dubya's
military record published. Now that's one set of records you hope
never sees the light of day. Well actually we have them. Ran Rather
has them but Rove made them look forged. Show some courage and admit
you won't vote for Obama because he is black.

[J. Clarke]

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> Micky > wrote:
> And this has exactly _WHAT_ to do with dSLRs?

Check the cross-posts--he's playing a game where the most responses to
his post wins.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Micky > saying
something like:

>Any Hollywood actor can read a teleprompter and memorize talking
>points written by secret handlers.

Hahahahahaha....
I don't think a Republican would really want to resurrect the memory of
a shambling senile buffoon doing just that.
--

Dave

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:

Where is the media?

I would guess that for some unknown reason they decided that a
digital photo slr news group was not the right place to cover the
subject, or maybe that there was no real issue to cover.

[cmcanulty]

Obama will restore the honor of USA

[C J Campbell]

On 2008-10-05 21:56:04 -0700, Micky > said:

> Why is it important to see Obama's college records?

This guy has posted the same thing to several different new groups that
I know of. He is not reading your replies.

Off-topic anti-Obama posting is no more helpful to Republicans than the
incessant off-topic Bush bashing that goes on in here is helpful to the
Democrats. Frankly, it makes them all look like morons.

Don't feed the trolls.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> , cmcanulty >
>
> done wrote:
> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> Vote Bob Barr.

Libertarians are a joke nowadays. Especially since they've resorted
to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
losing candidate this time around.
-GJ

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> "academic degrees and honors".
>
Good point. Let's have McCains medical records AND criminal records
posted on the Internet. He's one infamous member of the "Keating
Five".

[Jason[_5_]]

Micky wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start

>
>
> Some websites to submit your requests:
> http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/contact2
> http://abcnews.go.com/Site/page?id=3068843
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6872152/
> http://www.cnn.com/feedback/
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77538,00.html
> http://www.cbsnews.com/
>
>
>
> Some websites to read about Obama's "academic career":
> http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/05/obama-mythical.html
> http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=307579834298611
> http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/
> http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710381368&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
> http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74877
> http://reason.com/news/show/128461.html

I'm glad you're on this case!

Very IMPORTANT that we know the TRUTH!

[Vizier of Pittsburgh]

wrote:

> Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.

Yo Edsphil, you're the jerkoff for replying to the x-posting troll.

Ignore them and they go away...

[Jason[_5_]]

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
> , The Hysterical Bride
> > done wrote:
>
>> I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
>> record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
>
> You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?


You are brilliant ... tell us more!!

[Jason[_5_]]

wrote:
> On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
>> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
>> , cmcanulty >
>>
>> done wrote:
>>> Obama will restore the honor of USA
>> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>>
>> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> Libertarians are a joke nowadays. Especially since they've resorted
> to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
> losing candidate this time around.

Yeah!

[Jason[_5_]]

wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:56 am, Micky > wrote:
>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
>> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
>> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
>> "academic degrees and honors".
>>
> Good point. Let's have McCains medical records AND criminal records
> posted on the Internet. He's one infamous member of the "Keating
> Five".

You da man!!

[Jason[_5_]]

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> , cmcanulty >
> done wrote:
>
>> Obama will restore the honor of USA
>>
>
> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> Vote Bob Parr.

He was great in "The Incredibles" !!!! Superheroes are what we need!!

[John McWilliams]

J. Clarke wrote:
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Micky > wrote:
>> And this has exactly _WHAT_ to do with dSLRs?
>
> Check the cross-posts--he's playing a game where the most responses to
> his post wins.
>
so set followups to a random group......

[John McWilliams]

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:c73833f3-dce3-4ab2-a893-
> , done
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
>>> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
>>> , cmcanulty
> >
>>> done wrote:
>>>> Obama will restore the honor of USA
>>> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>>>
>>> Vote Bob Barr.
>> Libertarians are a joke nowadays. Especially since they've resorted
>> to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
>> losing candidate this time around.
>> -GJ
>>
>
> So you're voting for Chuck Baldwin? Nader? McKinney?

[John McWilliams]

C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2008-10-05 21:56:04 -0700, Micky > said:
>
>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records?
>
> This guy has posted the same thing to several different new groups that
> I know of. He is not reading your replies.
>
> Off-topic anti-Obama posting is no more helpful to Republicans than the
> incessant off-topic Bush bashing that goes on in here is helpful to the
> Democrats. Frankly, it makes them all look like morons.
>
> Don't feed the trolls.

Set followups to a random group...

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 11:27 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In message news:c73833f3-dce3-4ab2-a893-
> , done
> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> >> , cmcanulty
>
> >
>
>
>
> >> done wrote:
> >> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> >> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> >> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> > Libertarians are a joke nowadays. Especially since they've resorted
> > to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
> > losing candidate this time around.
> > -GJ
>
> So you're voting for Chuck Baldwin? Nader? McKinney?

Obama actually.

[socrates]

On Oct 6, 6:31*am, " >
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
>
> > Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> > has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> > dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> > "academic degrees and honors".
>
> Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.
>
> This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
> preposterous lies. *McCain refuses to release his medical records and
> you are okay with that. *Dubya never released his military records and
> you are okay with that. *You still have not been able to get Dubya's
> military record published. *Now that's one set of records you hope
> never sees the light of day. *Well actually we have them. *Ran Rather
> has them but Rove made them look forged. *Show some courage and admit
> you won't vote for Obama because he is black.

What makes me sick about Democrats and Republicans is that they always
accuse the other of doing what they do!
Be independent!

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 6, 7:12*am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
> , The Hysterical Bride
>
> > done wrote:
> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
>
> You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?

You wanna know something? I honestly didn't know Bush went to Harvard
for an MBA.

Wow, how'd he get in with Cs from Yale?

Maybe it was a legacy thing.

(Not putting down the President, just asking/wondering honestly and
curiously)

[John R.]

On Oct 6, 7:15*am, cmcanulty > wrote:
> Obama will restore the honor of USA

With all due respect, you are seriously trippin'.

John

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In ,
>
>
>
> done wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 11:27 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> In message news:c73833f3-dce3-4ab2-a893-
> >> ,
> >> done wrote:
>
> >> > On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> >> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> >> >> , cmcanulty
>
> >> >
>
> >> >> done wrote:
> >> >> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> >> >> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> >> >> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> >> > Libertarians are a joke nowadays. Especially since they've resorted
> >> > to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
> >> > losing candidate this time around.
> >> > -GJ
>
> >> So you're voting for Chuck Baldwin? Nader? McKinney?
>
> > Obama actually.
>
> Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:
>
> Obama:
>
> Goldman Sachs $739,521
>
> UBS AG $419,550
>
> Lehman Brothers $391,774
>
> Citigroup Inc $492,548
>
> Morgan Stanley $341,380
>
> Latham & Watkins $328,879
>
> Google Inc $487,355
>
> JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
>
> Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
>
> Skadden, Arps et al $360,409

Means nothing, they're putting their money on the horse they think'll
win. And look, I can copy & paste too:

McCain:
Merrill Lynch $349,170
Citigroup Inc $287,801
Morgan Stanley $249,377
Wachovia Corp $147,456
Goldman Sachs $220,045
Lehman Brothers $115,707
Bear Stearns $108,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
Bank of America $133,975
Credit Suisse Group $175,503

....and here's a read:
Top CEOs give 10 times more to McCain than to Obama:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top-ceos-give-10-times-more-to-mccain-than-to-obama-2008-08-15.html

But I do love his website:
http://www.johnmccainusa.com/

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 6, 12:33*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In message news:fcb4044b-f4de-4d50-86cb-
> , The Hysterical Bride
>
> > done wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 7:12*am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
> >> , The Hysterical Bride
>
> >> > done wrote:
> >> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> >> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
>
> >> You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?
>
> > You wanna know something? I honestly didn't know Bush went to Harvard
> > for an MBA.
>
> Neither did Bush <rimshot>. *He was full of coke at the time...
>
> Allegedly <wink>

Oh, well, I hear coke makes you really smart. Or was it hard? I don't
know. (joke)

I was a speed freak. (a while after I dropped out of the University of
Chicago not because of bad grades, by the way. I tried it once, loved
it, started getting it legally, found Kabbalah, stopped taking all
medicine and drugs, became the hysterical bride, then decided to do it
all the time after a while, because I realized my life was ruined, and
I was trying to magnetically draw Bob Dylan back to me.)

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 6, 1:17*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In ,
> The Hysterical Bride > done wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:33*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> In message news:fcb4044b-f4de-4d50-86cb-
> >> , The Hysterical Bride
>
> >> > done wrote:
> >> > On Oct 6, 7:12*am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> >> >> In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
> >> >> , The Hysterical Bride
>
> >> >> > done wrote:
> >> >> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
> >> >> > his record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
> >> >> > school?
>
> >> >> You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?
>
> >> > You wanna know something? I honestly didn't know Bush went to
> >> > Harvard for an MBA.
>
> >> Neither did Bush <rimshot>. *He was full of coke at the time...
>
> >> Allegedly <wink>
>
> > Oh, well, I hear coke makes you really smart. Or was it hard? I don't
> > know. (joke)
>
> My favorite Bill Cosby joke begins with a long description of being a
> college student getting drunk, and sick, and vowing "never to do this
> again." *It continues...
>
> Then I had another friend told me about cocaine. *Said, "it intensifies
> your personality." *I said, fine, but what if you're an asshole?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then you become a rock star.

[Dicerous]

On Oct 6, 11:47*am, socrates > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:31*am, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
>
> > > Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> > > has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> > > dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> > > "academic degrees and honors".
>
> > Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.
>
> > This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
> > preposterous lies. *McCain refuses to release his medical records and
> > you are okay with that. *Dubya never released his military records and
> > you are okay with that. *You still have not been able to get Dubya's
> > military record published. *Now that's one set of records you hope
> > never sees the light of day. *Well actually we have them. *Ran Rather
> > has them but Rove made them look forged. *Show some courage and admit
> > you won't vote for Obama because he is black.
>
> What makes me sick about Democrats and Republicans is that they always
> accuse the other of doing what they do!
> Be independent!

Socrates,

Even though you are whining again, I basically agree with you. I
welcome all of you intelligent, open-minded people over to efnet IRC
#philosophy when you want some fun.

Bye

David

[Frank Arthur]

Idiot "Dicerous" >

this is rec.photo.digital

[Miguel de Maria]

On Oct 6, 12:21*pm, wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In ,
>
> > done wrote:
> > > On Oct 6, 11:27 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> > >> In message news:c73833f3-dce3-4ab2-a893-
> > >> ,
> > >> done wrote:
>
> > >> > On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> > >> >> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> > >> >> , cmcanulty
>
> > >> >
>
> > >> >> done wrote:
> > >> >> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> > >> >> Pfft. *Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. *So is McCain.
>
> > >> >> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> > >> > Libertarians are a joke nowadays. *Especially since they've resorted
> > >> > to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
> > >> > losing candidate this time around.
> > >> > -GJ
>
> > >> So you're voting for Chuck Baldwin? *Nader? *McKinney?
>
> > > Obama actually.
>
> > Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:
>
> > Obama:
>
> > Goldman Sachs $739,521
>
> > UBS AG $419,550
>
> > Lehman Brothers $391,774
>
> > Citigroup Inc $492,548
>
> > Morgan Stanley $341,380
>
> > Latham & Watkins $328,879
>
> > Google Inc $487,355
>
> > JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
>
> > Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
>
> > Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
>
> Means nothing, they're putting their money on the horse they think'll
> win. *And look, I can copy & paste too:
>
> McCain:
> Merrill Lynch $349,170
> Citigroup Inc $287,801
> Morgan Stanley $249,377
> Wachovia Corp $147,456
> Goldman Sachs $220,045
> Lehman Brothers $115,707
> Bear Stearns $108,000
> JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
> Bank of America $133,975
> Credit Suisse Group $175,503
>
> ...and here's a read:
> Top CEOs give 10 times more to McCain than to Obama:http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top-ceos-give-10-times-more-to-mccai...
>
> But I do love his website:http://www.johnmccainusa.com/- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sadly, any candidate in the corporatist two-party system will have
views far to the right of 90% of the country. A few slogans, a bit of
flag-wrapping, a little leg, are all it takes to get the TV-addled
voters excited, perhaps enough to get off their couch and vote.

Obama will not rescue us, FDR-style, from this mess without pressure
from a united people (the way it was done in FDR's case). However, he
is obviously far more intelligent and rational than this McCain
creature. If people took to the streets under McCain's tenure, you
know people would die...

[Dicerous]

On Oct 6, 4:02*pm, Miguel de Maria >
wrote:
> On Oct 6, 12:21*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
>
> > > In ,
>
> > > done wrote:
> > > > On Oct 6, 11:27 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> > > >> In message news:c73833f3-dce3-4ab2-a893-
> > > >> ,
> > > >> done wrote:
>
> > > >> > On Oct 6, 10:13 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> > > >> >> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> > > >> >> , cmcanulty
>
> > > >> >
>
> > > >> >> done wrote:
> > > >> >> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> > > >> >> Pfft. *Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. *So is McCain.
>
> > > >> >> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> > > >> > Libertarians are a joke nowadays. *Especially since they've resorted
> > > >> > to ultra-stiff republican in-all-but-name Barr be their choice of
> > > >> > losing candidate this time around.
> > > >> > -GJ
>
> > > >> So you're voting for Chuck Baldwin? *Nader? *McKinney?
>
> > > > Obama actually.
>
> > > Top 10 Corporate PAC Contributors:
>
> > > Obama:
>
> > > Goldman Sachs $739,521
>
> > > UBS AG $419,550
>
> > > Lehman Brothers $391,774
>
> > > Citigroup Inc $492,548
>
> > > Morgan Stanley $341,380
>
> > > Latham & Watkins $328,879
>
> > > Google Inc $487,355
>
> > > JPMorgan Chase & Co $475,112
>
> > > Sidley Austin LLP $370,916
>
> > > Skadden, Arps et al $360,409
>
> > Means nothing, they're putting their money on the horse they think'll
> > win. *And look, I can copy & paste too:
>
> > McCain:
> > Merrill Lynch $349,170
> > Citigroup Inc $287,801
> > Morgan Stanley $249,377
> > Wachovia Corp $147,456
> > Goldman Sachs $220,045
> > Lehman Brothers $115,707
> > Bear Stearns $108,000
> > JPMorgan Chase & Co $206,392
> > Bank of America $133,975
> > Credit Suisse Group $175,503
>
> > ...and here's a read:
> > Top CEOs give 10 times more to McCain than to Obama:http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/top-ceos-give-10-times-more-to-mccai...
>
> > But I do love his website:http://www.johnmccainusa.com/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sadly, any candidate in the corporatist two-party system will have
> views far to the right of 90% of the country. *A few slogans, a bit of
> flag-wrapping, a little leg, are all it takes to get the TV-addled
> voters excited, perhaps enough to get off their couch and vote.
>
> Obama will not rescue us, FDR-style, from this mess without pressure
> from a united people (the way it was done in FDR's case). *However, he
> is obviously far more intelligent and rational than this McCain
> creature. *If people took to the streets under McCain's tenure, you
> know people would die...

Miguel,

I don't think people would die in the streets if mccain is elected.
He's a maverick!


David

[anon]

How about instead we demand that McCain and Palin discuss the issues!

Get used to it folks. With McBush & Caribou Barbie dropping quickly in
every poll the anti-American right wing attack machine is just getting
started.

[ZBicyclist]

The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>
> I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
> his
> record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
> school?

And, unlike W, he didn't have Daddy or GrandDaddy to get him into
Yale.

McCain was no genius in college -- he was near the bottom of his
class. So what?

--
Mike Kruger
http://mikekr.blogspot.com/

[socrates]

On Oct 6, 5:31*pm, Dicerous > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:47*am, socrates > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 6:31*am, " >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
>
> > > > Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> > > > has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> > > > dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> > > > "academic degrees and honors".
>
> > > Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.
>
> > > This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
> > > preposterous lies. *McCain refuses to release his medical records and
> > > you are okay with that. *Dubya never released his military records and
> > > you are okay with that. *You still have not been able to get Dubya's
> > > military record published. *Now that's one set of records you hope
> > > never sees the light of day. *Well actually we have them. *Ran Rather
> > > has them but Rove made them look forged. *Show some courage and admit
> > > you won't vote for Obama because he is black.
>
> > What makes me sick about Democrats and Republicans is that they always
> > accuse the other of doing what they do!
> > Be independent!
>
> Socrates,
>
> Even though you are whining again, I basically agree with you. *I
> welcome all of you intelligent, open-minded people over to efnet IRC
> #philosophy when you want some fun.
>
> Bye
>
> David

OK, king whiner, won't look in the mirror whiner :)

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 6, 6:46*pm, "ZBicyclist" > wrote:
> The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>
> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
> > his
> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
> > school?
>
> And, unlike W, he didn't have Daddy or GrandDaddy to get him into
> Yale.
>
> McCain was no genius in college -- he was near the bottom of his
> class. *So what?
>
> --
> Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/

Bob Dylan for President!

(Ok, no, seriously, I would prefer a President like Martin Sheen in
the West Wing. Somebody with a serious brain, and a good heart.)

Honestly, I would be very curious to know about Senator's Obama's
grades and scholastic test scores.

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 6, 6:56*pm, The Hysterical Bride > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:46*pm, "ZBicyclist" > wrote:
>
> > The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>
> > > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
> > > his
> > > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
> > > school?
>
> > And, unlike W, he didn't have Daddy or GrandDaddy to get him into
> > Yale.
>
> > McCain was no genius in college -- he was near the bottom of his
> > class. *So what?
>
> > --
> > Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/
>
> Bob Dylan for President!
>
> (Ok, no, seriously, I would prefer a President like Martin Sheen in
> the West Wing. Somebody with a serious brain, and a good heart.)
>
> Honestly, I would be very curious to know about Senator's Obama's
> grades and scholastic test scores.

Oops. Typo. Senator, not Senator's.

[John McWilliams]

Frank Arthur wrote:
> Idiot "Dicerous" >
>
> this is rec.photo.digital

Not just.

[John McWilliams]

The Hysterical Bride wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:56 pm, The Hysterical Bride > wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 6:46 pm, "ZBicyclist" > wrote:
>>
>>> The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>>>> I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
>>>> his
>>>> record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
>>>> school?
>>> And, unlike W, he didn't have Daddy or GrandDaddy to get him into
>>> Yale.
>>> McCain was no genius in college -- he was near the bottom of his
>>> class. So what?
>>> --
>>> Mike Krugerhttp://mikekr.blogspot.com/
>> Bob Dylan for President!
>>
>> (Ok, no, seriously, I would prefer a President like Martin Sheen in
>> the West Wing. Somebody with a serious brain, and a good heart.)
>>
>> Honestly, I would be very curious to know about Senator's Obama's
>> grades and scholastic test scores.
>
> Oops. Typo. Senator, not Senator's.

No need for corrections.

[John McWilliams]

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message news:2442b53a-6e09-44e9-81b7-
> , Miguel de Maria
> > done wrote:
>
>> Obama will not rescue us, FDR-style, from this mess without pressure
>> from a united people (the way it was done in FDR's case).
>
> "FDR-style"? WTF are you smoking?
>
> 1. Unemployment was 18% after 7 years of FDR. The following year Pearl
> Harbor happened and then the economy was saved. By Hitler and the Japs,
> not by FDR.
>
> 2. FDR outlawed private ownership of gold and confiscated all privately-
> held gold, giving it to the Federal Reserve. This permitted the abusive
> currency manipulations at the heart of the US deficit, debt, and coming
> financial meltdown.
>
> 3. FDR changed the culture of the United States from "personal
> responsibility" to "government bailout," again setting the stage for
> today's crises.

[Ray Fischer]

Micky > wrote:
>Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media

Because right-wing smear-mongers are looking for any excuse to sling ****.

--
Ray Fischer

[Chris Malcolm]

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems The Hysterical Bride > wrote:
> On Oct 6, 6:46?pm, "ZBicyclist" > wrote:
>> The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>>
>> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could
>> > his
>> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law
>> > school?
>>
>> And, unlike W, he didn't have Daddy or GrandDaddy to get him into
>> Yale.
>>
>> McCain was no genius in college -- he was near the bottom of his
>> class. ?So what?

> ... I would prefer a President like Martin Sheen in
> the West Wing. Somebody with a serious brain, and a good heart.)

> Honestly, I would be very curious to know about Senator's Obama's
> grades and scholastic test scores.

If you can't judge the relative intelligence of the two men by hearing
them answer unrehearsed questions in public interviews I think you
ought to give your vote to someone who can.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

[frank]

On Oct 6, 9:19*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In message news:2442b53a-6e09-44e9-81b7-
> , Miguel de Maria
>
> > done wrote:
> > Obama will not rescue us, FDR-style, from this mess without pressure
> > from a united people (the way it was done in FDR's case).
>
> "FDR-style"? *WTF are you smoking?
>
> 1. *Unemployment was 18% after 7 years of FDR. *The following year Pearl
> Harbor happened and then the economy was saved. *By Hitler and the Japs,
> not by FDR.
>
> 2. *FDR outlawed private ownership of gold and confiscated all privately-
> held gold, giving it to the Federal Reserve. *This permitted the abusive
> currency manipulations at the heart of the US deficit, debt, and coming
> financial meltdown.
>
> 3. *FDR changed the culture of the United States from "personal
> responsibility" to "government bailout," again setting the stage for
> today's crises.

I'll bet due to your ignorance of basic history and economics that
your photography is ****. Try reading the manual. That is probably way
more than your can comprehend. Maybe there are enough picrures in it
that you can ape.

I'll bet you went to an American public school. If you were in the
Commonwealth, you'd be on the dole for life.

[Bryan Olson]

The Hysterical Bride wrote:
> I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?

Oh, weak!

If you wanted to name *the* highest honor for a college student,
president of The Harvard Law Review would probably be it.


--
--Bryan

[Robert Coe]

On 06 Oct 2008 14:12:44 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
: In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
: , The Hysterical Bride
: > done wrote:
:
: > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
: > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
:
: You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?

Please. I went to Yale, as did my daughter. Must you remind the world that
that moron went there too? Have you no mercy?

Bob

[The Hysterical Bride]

On Oct 7, 8:52*am, Bryan Olson > wrote:
> The Hysterical Bride wrote:
> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
>
> Oh, weak!
>
> If you wanted to name *the* highest honor for a college student,
> president of The Harvard Law Review would probably be it.
>
> --
> --Bryan

Thank you for strengthening my argument.

However, now I am curious.

I really want to know what classes he took, and what grades he
received,

I think that is a legitimate inquiry when one is considering a
candidate for the Presidency of the United States, not that I feel in
any way qualified to vote.

[____]

In article
>,
socrates > wrote:

> On Oct 6, 6:31*am, " >
> wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
> >
> > > Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> > > has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> > > dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> > > "academic degrees and honors".
> >
> > Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.
> >
> > This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
> > preposterous lies. *McCain refuses to release his medical records and
> > you are okay with that. *Dubya never released his military records and
> > you are okay with that. *You still have not been able to get Dubya's
> > military record published. *Now that's one set of records you hope
> > never sees the light of day. *Well actually we have them. *Ran Rather
> > has them but Rove made them look forged. *Show some courage and admit
> > you won't vote for Obama because he is black.
>
> What makes me sick about Democrats and Republicans is that they always
> accuse the other of doing what they do!
> Be independent!

I am this year i registered _ I was Republican and am so sickened of the
crap. Shy of RR I have not voted Republican since. I voted for McCain
against GWB but McCain's slimy BS has me pretty turned off.

I briefly consider registering as a American Socialist, but since narrow
minded fools think socialist= communist - I refrained ;)

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article >,
That80sGuy > wrote:

> I said, fine, but what if you're an asshole?

In your case *if* is not the best operative :)

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article
>,
cmcanulty > wrote:

> Obama will restore the honor of USA

Its a lot to ask after 8 years of bad decisions.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article >,
That80sGuy > wrote:

> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> , cmcanulty >
> done wrote:
>
> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
> >
>
> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> Vote Bob Barr.

In other words throw your vote away so the race is more equal for the
Republicans.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article >,
Robert Coe > wrote:

> On 06 Oct 2008 14:12:44 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
> : In message news:4406e6cb-5ff2-47df-b1eb-
> : , The Hysterical Bride
> : > done wrote:
> :
> : > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
> : > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
> :
> : You mean like George W. Bush (BA from Yale, MBA from Harvard)?
>
> Please. I went to Yale, as did my daughter. Must you remind the world that
> that moron went there too? Have you no mercy?
>
> Bob

Well I can make you feel better, how would like the same initials as him.
I occasionally get called "George" as a result :( I didn't vote for the
twit either time.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records?

I don't know.

Isn't it enough we know what's on his iPod, without going through what
albums he listened to at college?

SunDog

[Chris H]

In message
>, The
Hysterical Bride > writes
>On Oct 7, 8:52*am, Bryan Olson > wrote:
>> The Hysterical Bride wrote:
>> > I didn't look at the links, but I'm just thinking, how bad could his
>> > record be if he managed to go from Columbia into Harvard Law school?
>>
>> Oh, weak!
>>
>> If you wanted to name *the* highest honor for a college student,
>> president of The Harvard Law Review would probably be it.
>>
>> --
>> --Bryan
>
>Thank you for strengthening my argument.
>
>However, now I am curious.
>
>I really want to know what classes he took, and what grades he
>received,
>
>I think that is a legitimate inquiry when one is considering a
>candidate for the Presidency of the United States,

I would agree then you can put them next those obtained by McCain and
Palin)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris H]

In message
>,
writes
>On Oct 6, 12:56*am, Micky > wrote:
>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records?
>
>I don't know.
>
>Isn't it enough we know what's on his iPod, without going through what
>albums he listened to at college?

He had those albums on his iPod but he didn't inhale them :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 10:15 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In , ____
>
>
>
> > done wrote:
> > In article >,
> > That80sGuy > wrote:
>
> >> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
> >> , cmcanulty
> >> > done wrote:
>
> >> > Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> >> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>
> >> Vote Bob Barr.
>
> > In other words throw your vote away so the race is more equal for the
> > Republicans.
>
> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>
> Obama is in Congress.
> McCain is in Congress.
> Barr is not in Congress.
>
> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the very least
> it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.

Yes, but Barr is a dumbass. He was among the first to want to impeach
Clinton. He's threatened by Witchcraft. Opposed abortion except for
the one he and his then-wife had. His switch to now approving medical
marijuana use is so transparently politically motivated it's laughable
(though better). Oh jeez, I could go on.

On the plus side, I too support the Fair Tax which neither major
candidate does. But face it, Obama or McSame will be president. No
one else. Right now it's Obama's race to lose.

[John McWilliams]

wrote:
> On Oct 8, 10:15 am, That80sGuy > wrote:
>> In , ____
>>
>>
>>
>> > done wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> That80sGuy > wrote:
>>>> In message news:2b6ec9e4-cb51-4044-8088-
>>>> , cmcanulty
>>>> > done wrote:
>>>>> Obama will restore the honor of USA
>>>> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is McCain.
>>>> Vote Bob Barr.
>>> In other words throw your vote away so the race is more equal for the
>>> Republicans.
>> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>>
>> Obama is in Congress.
>> McCain is in Congress.
>> Barr is not in Congress.
>>
>> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the very least
>> it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>
> Yes, but Barr is a dumbass. He was among the first to want to impeach
> Clinton. He's threatened by Witchcraft. Opposed abortion except for
> the one he and his then-wife had. His switch to now approving medical
> marijuana use is so transparently politically motivated it's laughable
> (though better). Oh jeez, I could go on.
>
> On the plus side, I too support the Fair Tax which neither major
> candidate does. But face it, Obama or McSame will be president. No
> one else. Right now it's Obama's race to lose.

whatever

[Miguel de Maria]

On Oct 8, 1:21*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In ,
>
> done wrote:
> >> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>
> >> Obama is in Congress.
> >> McCain is in Congress.
> >> Barr is not in Congress.
>
> >> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. *At the very
> >> least it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>
> > Yes, but Barr is a dumbass.
>
> Namecalling - last refuge of the intellectually vanquished.
>
> > He was among the first to want to impeach
> > Clinton.
>
> So you think Clinton was unimpeachable? *Wow.

Now there's an intellectual response.

[John McWilliams]

Miguel de Maria wrote:
> On Oct 8, 1:21 pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
>> In ,
>>
>> done wrote:
>>>> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>>>> Obama is in Congress.
>>>> McCain is in Congress.
>>>> Barr is not in Congress.
>>>> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the very
>>>> least it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>>> Yes, but Barr is a dumbass.
>> Namecalling - last refuge of the intellectually vanquished.
>>
>>> He was among the first to want to impeach
>>> Clinton.
>> So you think Clinton was unimpeachable? Wow.
>
> Now there's an intellectual response.

yeah

[gemini jackson]

On 08 Oct 2008 20:21:33 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>In message
,
done wrote:
>
>>> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>>>
>>> Obama is in Congress.
>>> McCain is in Congress.
>>> Barr is not in Congress.
>>>
>>> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the very
>>> least it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>>
>> Yes, but Barr is a dumbass.
>
>Namecalling - last refuge of the intellectually vanquished.

I give mean looks too.

>> He was among the first to want to impeach
>> Clinton.
>
>So you think Clinton was unimpeachable?

For the blowjob and trying to cover his ass in near unequalled
embarrassment with the whole world watching? Yes. I was a Perot man
myself those days but we could've done worse. But you and I may not
agree on this, let me introduce you to someone... badlands?

>Wow.

Groovy?



-GJ

[John McWilliams]

gemini jackson wrote:
> On 08 Oct 2008 20:21:33 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
>
>> In message
>> ,
>> done wrote:
>>
>>>> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>>>>
>>>> Obama is in Congress.
>>>> McCain is in Congress.
>>>> Barr is not in Congress.
>>>>
>>>> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the very
>>>> least it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>>> Yes, but Barr is a dumbass.
>> Namecalling - last refuge of the intellectually vanquished.
>
> I give mean looks too.
>
>>> He was among the first to want to impeach
>>> Clinton.
>> So you think Clinton was unimpeachable?
>
> For the blowjob and trying to cover his ass in near unequalled
> embarrassment with the whole world watching? Yes. I was a Perot man
> myself those days but we could've done worse. But you and I may not
> agree on this, let me introduce you to someone... badlands?
>
>> Wow.
>
> Groovy?
>
>
>
> -GJ

[____]

In article >,
gemini jackson > wrote:

> I was a Perot man
> myself those days but we could've done worse.

I liked Ross and voted for him. It was like he was seeing the future our
present if you will. Maybe a lot of other people should have listened a
bit more closely to his message.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[HEMI-Powered]

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> Pfft. Obama is a Rockefeller-controlled CFR stooge. So is
>>> McCain.
>>>
>>> Vote Bob Barr.
>>
>> In other words throw your vote away so the race is more equal
>> for the Republicans.
>
> Congress has an approval rating of 10%.
>
> Obama is in Congress.
> McCain is in Congress.
> Barr is not in Congress.
>
> Voting for Obama or McCain is throwing your vote away. At the
> very least it's a vote that contradicts your own sentiments.
>
Your logic does not compute. Just because Congress as a whole has
such a low approval rating does not necessarily mean that
individual members of the House or Senate are not patriots or
worthy candidates for president. Bob Barr is a reasonable guy as is
Ron Paul. But, the Libertarians as the "registered" contrarians of
American politics would get a whole lot more traction if they also
weren't the gadflies they always are. I'd include Ralph Nader in
that, also. If one actually looks at the platform of Libertarians
or anyone who is a Republican but a Federalist/strict
constructionist, it is hard to see how such far right ideas can
even be workable much less form any kind of coalition of
disassitifed voters. So, you or anyone is free to vote for whom
they please and/or vote against anyone they please. But,
unless/until any third party candidate or a real third party itself
becomes minimally mainstream to American core beliefs and values,
THAT would be throwing one's vote away.

But, looking more broadly, except in a small number of battleground
states, it really doesn't matter much what any individual voter
does as the state will likely stay Blue or Red. And, since that is
how we elect presidents - by carrying states vs. popular vote -
then the discussion often is academic.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered]

> Yes, but Barr is a dumbass. He was among the first to want to
> impeach Clinton. He's threatened by Witchcraft. Opposed
> abortion except for the one he and his then-wife had. His
> switch to now approving medical marijuana use is so
> transparently politically motivated it's laughable (though
> better). Oh jeez, I could go on.

Barr is in the same category here as is Ron Paul who has sponsored
something over 35 articles of impeachment against President Bush,
none of which have even very minor support. But, it is interesting
to see him bloviate to the Congressional Record in reading his
latest venture at getting rid of the president.

> On the plus side, I too support the Fair Tax which neither
> major candidate does. But face it, Obama or McSame will be
> president. No one else. Right now it's Obama's race to lose.
>
The Fair Tax, supported somewhat differently by Mike Huckabee,
isn't fair at all. In fact, it is highly regressive falling most
heavily on the poor and marginally employed. To make any flat tax
proposal even marginally acceptable, a complex patchwork quilt of
give backs to those below the middle class line in order to un-
regress the tax scheme leading to an almost equally
incomprehensible system as today's "progressive" system. But,
depending on the actual rate(s) and actual give backs of any
candidates proposal on a flat or Fair Tax, it might well be that
the bulk of the middle class as well as small businesses would pay
a disproportionately large share while the so-called rich escape.

For proof of that last, it is interesting to note that the top 1%
of American taxpayers, well about the 5% "rich" cut-off of Sen.
Obama's plan, pay about 90% of all income taxes, which seems
eminently fair to me. And, looking back to schemes under Clinton,
Carter and others to attempt to soak the rich, what has actually
happened time and time again is to reduce the rate paid by the top
tier of taxpayers, exactly the opposite of the desired effect.
e.g., in the Clinton years, the top 5% of wage earners paid less
than 40% of all taxes compared to today's 90%. And, let's not
forget that some 42% of all employed people in the United States
today actually pay no tax at all.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered]

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> He was among the first to want to impeach
>> Clinton.
>
> So you think Clinton was unimpeachable? Wow.
>
No president is unimpeachable but the case against Clinton was
highly politicized and flimsy at best. Yeah he did say "I did not
have sexual relations with that woman" on national TV but that or
even Whitewater hardly rises to the definition of "high crimes and
misdemeanors." One could make a far better case on any number of
fronts against President Bush yet except for Ron Paul's 35+
articles of impeachement, not even the Democrats have the stomach
to make the attempt. Impeachment, like censorship, is a very
slippery slope for politicians in general. For today's majority
might be tomorrow's minority party and the next target of the
impeachment zealots.

A better idea, if anyone can think of a way to implement it, would
be to select and then elect presidential candidates who are honest,
have high ethics and high integrity, and put the American people
first instead of themselves or their party. That kind of candidate
would never suffer the indignaty of an impeachment trial but alas,
finding such a truthful person is pretty difficult.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[HEMI-Powered]

____ added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>> I was a Perot man
>> myself those days but we could've done worse.
>
> I liked Ross and voted for him. It was like he was seeing the
> future our present if you will. Maybe a lot of other people
> should have listened a bit more closely to his message.
>
Perot had an outstanding idea of actually putting the executive
branch under the control of someone who understands how to manage a
very large, complex, and expensive federal bureacracy. But, it
takes much more than being a good fiscal manager to make a good
president. Ross had other admirable qualities as well and did
remarkably well in his run for office, yet he still failed with all
his charts and graphs to identify with mainstreet voters in a way
they can understand.

It has been said that politics is perception rather than truth. It
is also said that Americans have a very short memory wrt shady
politicians and often make their voting decision on what did or
didn't happen in the last week or weeks before the election. It
would seem that despite a lackluster campaign, McCain appears to be
gaining back the lost ground he suffered as the Wall Street
meltdown unfolded but it is still anybody's guess as to what will
actually be on voters minds on November 4 except that they are
highly likely to still be very ****ed and very worried about the
economy. Usually, when this type of thing happens they take it out
on the incumbent president's party but not always. In this
election, it is my view and a whole bunch of representatives and
senators from both parties will lose their seats due to voters
believing they either sold out the American people or simple sat
idly by as the country was about to go bust. But, it could easily
happen that instead of the Democrats gaining large majorities in
Congress, it might be still close to 50/50 in either or both houses
yet still have a turnover in the White House.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Don't say 'can't' when you really mean 'won't'"

[---------------]

"Micky" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> "academic degrees and honors".
>

Go to your KKK meeting and leave us alone, asshole.

[John McWilliams]

That80sGuy wrote:
> In message , "-----------
> ----" > done wrote:
>
>> "Micky" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
>>> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
>>> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
>>> "academic degrees and honors".
>>>
>> Go to your KKK meeting and leave us alone, asshole.
>
> Being against Obamessiah doesn't take racism; it merely takes thought.

[Oliver Costich]

On 14 Oct 2008 12:06:28 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>In message , "-----------
>----" > done wrote:
>
>>
>> "Micky" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
>>> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
>>> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
>>> "academic degrees and honors".
>>>
>>
>> Go to your KKK meeting and leave us alone, asshole.
>
>Being against Obamessiah doesn't take racism; it merely takes thought.


Yeah, "thought" like Sara Palin's.

[SMS]

____ wrote:
> In article
> >,
> cmcanulty > wrote:
>
>> Obama will restore the honor of USA
>
> Its a lot to ask after 8 years of bad decisions.

No it's not. Restoring our honor will be the easy part. There are plenty
of qualified people to run the State Department, and plenty with real
foreign policy experience.

Undoing the economic damage that the Republicans have wrought will he
the hard part. It's going to take a lot more than eight years.

[SMS]

anon wrote:
> How about instead we demand that McCain and Palin discuss the issues!
>
> Get used to it folks. With McBush & Caribou Barbie dropping quickly in
> every poll the anti-American right wing attack machine is just getting
> started.

Perhaps, but they've lost relevance. They scream about such stupid
things like Bill Ayers and ACORN that no one pays attention to them
anymore. If they had anything real on Obama they'd have used it by now.

They are losing more than the presidency in this election. It's possible
that there will be a cloture-proof majority in the senate. There are
some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between the
Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable to stop
the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy. Even at 59
Democrats + Independents there may be a couple of good Republicans to
prevent cloture.

[Boskey]

..
>
> Undoing the economic damage that the Republicans have wrought will he the
> hard part. It's going to take a lot more than eight years.

Did I miss something here, or has it been Dems running Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac; and has it not been the Dems in majority in both houses of the
Congress for the past two years. If the Dems really didn't like something,
they surely had the votes the implement change in fiscal responsiblity.
Bottomline, both sides of the aisle have a share in the economic blame game.

[Boskey]

>
> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>
> Obama's economic plan:
>
> Taxes.
> Taxes.
> Spending.
> Spending.
> Debt.
> Debt.

Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he has
indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be replaced by
the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to raise
taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.

[____]

In article >,
"Boskey" > wrote:

> >
> > Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
> >
> > Obama's economic plan:
> >
> > Taxes.
> > Taxes.
> > Spending.
> > Spending.
> > Debt.
> > Debt.
>
> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he has
> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
> being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be replaced by
> the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to raise
> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.

I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush economic stimulus
checks were taken from Social Security funds. I would be interested to
know if the rumor was true.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article >,
That80sGuy > wrote:

> In message , SMS
> > done wrote:
>
> > There are
> > some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between the
> > Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable to stop
> > the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy.
>
> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>
> Obama's economic plan:
>
> Taxes.
> Taxes.
> Spending.
> Spending.

Its American to pay taxes, only the rich have a problem with it, get
over it.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[John McWilliams]

____ wrote:
> In article >,
> "Boskey" > wrote:
>
>>> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>>>
>>> Obama's economic plan:
>>>
>>> Taxes.
>>> Taxes.
>>> Spending.
>>> Spending.
>>> Debt.
>>> Debt.
>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he has
>> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
>> being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
>> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be replaced by
>> the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to raise
>> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>
> I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush economic stimulus
> checks were taken from Social Security funds. I would be interested to
> know if the rumor was true.
>
Rumors.

lsmft

[John McWilliams]

Oliver Costich wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2008 12:06:28 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
>
>> In message , "-----------
>> ----" > done wrote:
>>
>>> "Micky" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
>>>> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
>>>> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
>>>> "academic degrees and honors".
>>>>
>>> Go to your KKK meeting and leave us alone, asshole.
>> Being against Obamessiah doesn't take racism; it merely takes thought.
>
>
> Yeah, "thought" like Sara Palin's.

zackly

[John R.[_2_]]

John McWilliams > wrote in
:

> Boskey wrote:
>> .
>>> Undoing the economic damage that the Republicans have wrought will
>>> he the hard part. It's going to take a lot more than eight years.
>>
>> Did I miss something here, or has it been Dems running Fannie Mae and
>> Freddie Mac; and has it not been the Dems in majority in both houses
>> of the Congress for the past two years. If the Dems really didn't
>> like something, they surely had the votes the implement change in
>> fiscal responsiblity. Bottomline, both sides of the aisle have a
>> share in the economic blame game.
>>
>>
>
> They are all to blame.
>
> ;lsmft
>

I think that if there was a Republican anywhere near this, there would have
been hearings with that poor mutha on the front page for three weeks. You
have not seen that because they Dem elites are in to this neck deep.

In the 2006 all you heard about for 4 weeks was Mark Foley. Well, you
might not know it, but his Dem successor is neck deep in a scandal that
makes Foley's text messages pale, in comparison.

John

[gemini jackson]

On 14 Oct 2008 23:24:44 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>In message , SMS
> done wrote:
>
>> There are
>> some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between the
>> Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable to stop
>> the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy.
>
>Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>
>Obama's economic plan:
>
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.
>Taxes.
>Taxes.
>Spending.
>Spending.
>Debt.
>Debt.

You old ****ers in your 80's are so longwinded!
-GJ

[Miguel de Maria]

On Oct 14, 4:40*pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > Undoing the economic damage that the Republicans have wrought will he the
> > hard part. It's going to take a lot more than eight years.
>
> Did I miss something here, or has it been Dems running Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac; and has it not been the Dems in majority in both houses of the
> Congress for the past two years. *If the Dems really didn't like something,
> they surely had the votes the implement change in fiscal responsiblity.
> Bottomline, both sides of the aisle have a share in the economic blame game.

If you are puzzled, then follow the money.

[John McWilliams]

Miguel de Maria wrote:
> On Oct 14, 4:40 pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>> Undoing the economic damage that the Republicans have wrought will he the
>>> hard part. It's going to take a lot more than eight years.
>> Did I miss something here, or has it been Dems running Fannie Mae and
>> Freddie Mac; and has it not been the Dems in majority in both houses of the
>> Congress for the past two years. If the Dems really didn't like something,
>> they surely had the votes the implement change in fiscal responsiblity.
>> Bottomline, both sides of the aisle have a share in the economic blame game.
>
> If you are puzzled, then follow the money.

Or the bouncing ball

[[email protected]]

On Oct 14, 7:24*pm, That80sGuy > wrote:
> In m, SMS
>
> > done wrote:
> > There are
> > some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between the
> > Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable to stop
> > the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy.
>
> Democrats? *Rebuild the economy? *What the **** are you smoking?
>
> Obama's economic plan:
>
> Taxes.
> Taxes.
> Spending.
> Spending.
> Debt.
> Debt.

Spending/borrowing $20bn a month off-budget is fiscally sound? That
amount does not include the on-budget pentagon money.

[gemini jackson]

On 15 Oct 2008 11:01:03 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>And Obama's plan has a balanced budget for FY2010? Didn't think so.
>Obama voted for the $700B bailout. That's $58B a month. So Obama is 3X
>more irresponsible than Bush, astounding as that may be.

What's astounding is the narrow minded attempt to skew the details to
be in favor of your candidate instead of using unbiased facts. McCain
voted for the bailout too. But to his credit he was a POW for 5
years.

-GJ

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
> In message , "Boskey"
> > done wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>>>
>>> Obama's economic plan:
>>>
>>> Taxes.
>>> Taxes.
>>> Spending.
>>> Spending.
>>> Debt.
>>> Debt.
>>
>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans.
>
> As did Bill Clinton. How'd that work out?

With a balanced budget and a strong economy.

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
>
> You need a bullet in your head.

And now you threaten violence and murder. kthxbye.

[John McWilliams]

gemini jackson wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2008 11:01:03 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
>
>> And Obama's plan has a balanced budget for FY2010? Didn't think so.
>> Obama voted for the $700B bailout. That's $58B a month. So Obama is 3X
>> more irresponsible than Bush, astounding as that may be.
>
> What's astounding is the narrow minded attempt to skew the details to
> be in favor of your candidate instead of using unbiased facts. McCain
> voted for the bailout too. But to his credit he was a POW for 5
> years.
>

Amen

[frank]

On Oct 14, 6:48*pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
> > Democrats? *Rebuild the economy? *What the **** are you smoking?
>
> > Obama's economic plan:
>
> > Taxes.
> > Taxes.
> > Spending.
> > Spending.
> > Debt.
> > Debt.
>
> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. *However, I believe he has
> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
> being extended. *Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. *Then, it will be replaced by
> the Obama brand of tax cuts. *No wonder Obama can say he won't need to raise
> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.

He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and raising them
for the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're going to take a big
hit. But you can afford it if you make a million. There are rural
farmers making 20 grand in upstate New York. If you're making multi
millions, you can afford it, ditto the CEO that got double digit
millions for a few weeks of work. Nice job if you can get it. By the
way, company was taken over in the bailout.

I think they can afford a Social Security / Medicaire cap removal
also.

[John McWilliams]

frank wrote:
> On Oct 14, 6:48 pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
>>> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>>> Obama's economic plan:
>>> Taxes.
>>> Taxes.
>>> Spending.
>>> Spending.
>>> Debt.
>>> Debt.
>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he has
>> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
>> being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
>> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be replaced by
>> the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to raise
>> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>
> He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and raising them
> for the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're going to take a big
> hit. But you can afford it if you make a million. There are rural
> farmers making 20 grand in upstate New York. If you're making multi
> millions, you can afford it, ditto the CEO that got double digit
> millions for a few weeks of work. Nice job if you can get it. By the
> way, company was taken over in the bailout.
>
> I think they can afford a Social Security / Medicaire cap removal
> also.

[CatPanDaddy]

"frank" > wrote in message
...
> On Oct 14, 6:48 pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
>>
>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he has
>> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
>> being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts that
>> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be replaced
>> by
>> the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to
>> raise
>> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>
> He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and raising them for
> the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're going to take a big hit. But
> you can afford it if you make a million.

Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that the big business people can afford it,
but the problem is that any factor that increases or decreases your budget
will cause a business to adjust accordingly, just the same as those of us
pulling down the unskilled wages have to adjust our own budgets. Even when
a big business gets into a money crunch, even if it can "afford" it, it's
still going to have to adjust the budget, and one of the first things to
happen is that more corners get cut. It's a vicious cycle.

[John McWilliams]

catpandaddy wrote:
>
> "frank" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Oct 14, 6:48 pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he
>>> has
>>> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
>>> being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts
>>> that
>>> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will be
>>> replaced by
>>> the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say he won't need to
>>> raise
>>> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>>
>> He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and raising them
>> for the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're going to take a big
>> hit. But you can afford it if you make a million.
>
> Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that the big business people can afford
> it, but the problem is that any factor that increases or decreases your
> budget will cause a business to adjust accordingly, just the same as
> those of us pulling down the unskilled wages have to adjust our own
> budgets. Even when a big business gets into a money crunch, even if it
> can "afford" it, it's still going to have to adjust the budget, and one
> of the first things to happen is that more corners get cut. It's a
> vicious cycle.

Try for just one ng that's OT.

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

gemini jackson added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>And Obama's plan has a balanced budget for FY2010? Didn't
>>think so. Obama voted for the $700B bailout. That's $58B a
>>month. So Obama is 3X more irresponsible than Bush,
>>astounding as that may be.
>
> What's astounding is the narrow minded attempt to skew the
> details to be in favor of your candidate instead of using
> unbiased facts. McCain voted for the bailout too. But to his
> credit he was a POW for 5 years.
>
Despite all the record of one guy who says he is for change and
the other who says he's a maverick, they are both skilled
politicians.

We can debate the true or falsehood of all these issues but never
reach a consensus any more than one will be reached by the
American people in tonight's last debate.

As to voting, even the Joe Friday "the facts, ma'am, nothing but
the facts" simply does not reveal all that much about either
Obama or McCain when purely looking at their Senate voting
records as most of the "he voted 94 times for this or that" are
procural votes ancillary to a much smaller number of bills.

As to medical records, just like guilt by association accusations
flowing both ways, neither candidate has been at all forthcoming
although McCain is minorly better.

As to McCain's POW experiences, that doesn't give him much of a
leg up on national security or military issues but his later
career as the Navy's liason office to the Senate did. But Obama's
complete lack of any military experience but his complete lack of
forthrightness on his actual formative years experiences is
telling indeed.

Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: Obama "with a
little help from his friends" has somehow managed to twart all
FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) requests trying to find out
what he did at Columbia or at Harvard Law. All of his papers, all
of his exams, and even his Harvard Law Review articles are 100%
locked up somehow.

To whatever extent it may matter to a voter population with a
very short memory - that is, a Republican screwed up the ecomony
and cost me my life's savings, McCain did actually volunteer to
testify in court and before Congress for his involvement in the
Keating S & L scandal.

I am neither a conspiracy theorist nor excessively "you'll tell
us if you have nothing to hide", I think that what Obama and
McCain BOTH have FAILED to tell the American people about
themselves and about how they would handle the myriad of issues
in this campaign is far more relevant than is the finger pointing
game.

A couple of non-economic observations. If Obama could actually
implement his healthcare reforms in their entirety, the Laws of
Economics would bring it down. Both medical malpractice tort
reform and the myth of savings from preventative medicine would
doom it. McCain, OTOH, is an example of both excessive
privatization and "what the left hand giveth, the right hand
taketh away" in that the $5,000 refundable tax credit to buy
health care has a tax all company-provided health care to be
taxed under current IRS regs for what is called "imputed income",
he doesn't need much of Congressional action for that.

BTW, does anybody know exactly how taxes can be cut for 95% of
working people when 40% pay no taxes at all? Yeah, I know, it is
really welfare in the form of refundable tax credits. And,
anybody know the truth about what happens when you creat a soak
the rich scheme, either of them? Yeah, aggregate tax revenues go
down.

If there is one good thing for the American people and those of
us who prefer a free market system to class warfare and Marxist
wealth redistribution fiats is that neither candidate will be
able to do very much; their hands are effectively tied by the
realities of today's bailouts.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

frank added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and
> raising them for the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're
> going to take a big hit. But you can afford it if you make a
> million. There are rural farmers making 20 grand in upstate
> New York. If you're making multi millions, you can afford it,
> ditto the CEO that got double digit millions for a few weeks
> of work. Nice job if you can get it. By the way, company was
> taken over in the bailout.

How well do you hear "horse****!" Please examine the actual words
in the plan itself and not campaign rhetoric from either
candidate. YOu may be both surprised and dismayed.

> I think they can afford a Social Security / Medicaire cap
> removal also.
>
Not quite. He creates what is called a "donut hole" for Medicare
Part D prescription coverage in that taxes for both workers and
employers still stop at today's upper limit but then restart at
$250,000.

If either candidate wanted to make Social Security and Medicare
taxes, especially SS, they would remove it's inherrent
regressiveness and only START charging taxes at,say, $40,000 but
removing the entire top cap. I am not a Socialist but I do feel
the pain for the working poor who don't have a portfolio to be
lost in the economic meltdown and the same poor that never come
within even 25% of hitting the SS cap.

Whatever your candidate preferences, you have that right in a
(still?) free society but it is crucial to look at least a little
beyong the stump speeches.

I'm not all that worried about Obama's medical records unless
maybe he's hiding some truths about what doctors he saw during
his days of drinking and doing drugs which lasted at least
through his undergraduate years at Columbia. Nobody knows what he
did at Harvard Law as everything is sealed. We do know the title
of his Columbia senior thesis which was something like "The Use
of Disarmament to End the Cold War" when it was written in 1983
or so.

Keep in mind that this was in Reagan's first term and the news of
the day was the SDI known as Star Wars. As we now know from
history, the Cold War ended NOT through unbridled negotiation or
naive give-aways, but because it was confronted by overwhelming
strength to the point that the laws of economics toppled the
Soviet Union.

Now, exactly what Putin will eventually do is anybody's guess.


--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

catpandaddy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that the big business people
> can afford it, but the problem is that any factor that
> increases or decreases your budget will cause a business to
> adjust accordingly, just the same as those of us pulling down
> the unskilled wages have to adjust our own budgets. Even when
> a big business gets into a money crunch, even if it can
> "afford" it, it's still going to have to adjust the budget,
> and one of the first things to happen is that more corners get
> cut. It's a vicious cycle.
>
The "big people" have demonstrated time and time and time again
that they are quite skilled at moving money off shore and into
sheltered investments so they won't be hurt. Who is really hurt
is the upper middle class from about $100-150,000 when they find
out what the tax scheme for them really is.

As an aside, please consider this: poor folk want to be lower
middle class, middle class wants to be upper middle, and uppper
middle WANTs to get nailed by Obama.That is called the American
Dream and is the most powerful incentive to work hard and
innovate the world has ever known.



--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

catpandaddy added these comments in the current
discussion du
jour ...

>>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans.
>>
>> As did Bill Clinton. How'd that work out?
>
> With a balanced budget and a strong economy.
>
True enough, but how about the rest of the story?

The dot.com bubble actually burst on Clinton's watch
but nobody knew about it. The tax surpluses were really
created by cooking the books but nobody knew it. And
Clinton's NSA knew that al Qaeda was training
terrorists for an airline attack. Clinton told the Bush
tranistion team, headed by incoming NSA Condi Rice, all
about the airline scheme but she - by her own admission
- didn't tell the president until August, 2001.

Oops! Forgot to tell the sordid truth. And, who can
forget the president having to shut his own wife's
healthcare reform heist down in 1994? Dang, I don't
recall Hillary ever being confirmed by the Senate as a
Clinton appointee to reform healthcare, do you.

Have a real nice day, OK?




--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is
doing the right things" - Peter Drucker

[CatPanDaddy]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
>
> Have a real nice day, OK?

You as well. Though I've only seen a few of your messages over here in the
newsgroup I'm reading this thread from, I like your systematic approach to
breaking things down and looking at things carefully. Just wanted to say
that's a good thing.

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
> In message , gemini jackson
> > done wrote:
>
>> On 15 Oct 2008 11:01:03 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
>>
>>>And Obama's plan has a balanced budget for FY2010? Didn't think so.
>>>Obama voted for the $700B bailout. That's $58B a month. So Obama is 3X
>>>more irresponsible than Bush, astounding as that may be.
>>
>> What's astounding is the narrow minded attempt to skew the details to
>> be in favor of your candidate instead of using unbiased facts. McCain
>> voted for the bailout too.
>
> Where have I stated support for McCain? Oh, that's right, I haven't.
> Because I don't. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that the ONLY
> method you have to "support" Obama is to say that he's not McCain.
>
> And even that is wrong. Obama IS McCain. McCain is Bush. Bush is
> Clinton. ALL corrupt. ALL evil. ALL the same.

We are all Jeffy!!!!!

[Richard Yates]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: ....All of his papers, all
> of his exams, and even his Harvard Law Review articles are 100%
> locked up somehow.

You see, this is the kind of patently false claim that undermines anything
else that might be useful in your post. To repeat it says that you are
unable to look at a statement and make an intelligent, critical evaluation
of its validity. Anyone looking at that statement should immediately ask:

How could law review articles be "100% locked up" when the Harvard Law
Review is distributed world wide? Obama was there in 1990. Did someone go
and buy them all up 15 years after they were published? Did they then pay
off or murder all the people who they bought the copies from? What about the
copies that are right now in the law library down the street? Did they
publish replacement copies and smuggle them into every law library in the
world? Yeah, that's it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> As did Bill Clinton. How'd that work out?
>>
>> With a balanced budget and a strong economy.
>
> Hah. The budget was "balanced" by raiding the SS trust fund. The "strong
> economy"? How much stock you buy in March '00, McFly? NASDAQ 5000 ring a
> bell? How much of that 5000 'DAQ was REAL? NONE OF IT. All bubble. Oh,
> and Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagal. And he oversaw Frank
> Raines at Fannie. And he expanded the Community Reinvestment Act.
> Bubble.
> Bubble. Bubble.
>
> Call it Bubba's Bubble.

"Bubba's Bubble"... I like! Can I swipe that for a sig file?

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
> In message ,
> "catpandaddy"
> > done wrote:
>
>>
>> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> You need a bullet in your head.
>>
>> And now you threaten violence and murder.
>
> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood of
> tyrants".

That quote refers to people in elected office though. I can agree with that
quote (and your "Bubba's Bubble" quote by the way, that was totally money,
no pun intended :-) ) but I prefer to stop short of applying it to people I
interact with on the Net. I'm strange like that.

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

Richard Yates wrote:
> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: ....All of his papers, all
>> of his exams, and even his Harvard Law Review articles are 100%
>> locked up somehow.
>
> You see, this is the kind of patently false claim that undermines anything
> else that might be useful in your post. To repeat it says that you are
> unable to look at a statement and make an intelligent, critical evaluation
> of its validity. Anyone looking at that statement should immediately ask:
>
> How could law review articles be "100% locked up" when the Harvard Law
> Review is distributed world wide? Obama was there in 1990. Did someone go
> and buy them all up 15 years after they were published? Did they then pay
> off or murder all the people who they bought the copies from? What about the
> copies that are right now in the law library down the street? Did they
> publish replacement copies and smuggle them into every law library in the
> world? Yeah, that's it.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
>
>


Who ARE those guys?

Butch Cassidy

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[gemini jackson]

On 15 Oct 2008 17:09:53 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>In message news:0064bd3e-a86d-4d9b-9536-
, frank
> done wrote:
>
>> On Oct 14, 6:48*pm, "Boskey" > wrote:
>>> > Democrats? *Rebuild the economy? *What the **** are you smoking?
>>>
>>> > Obama's economic plan:
>>>
>>> > Taxes.
>>> > Taxes.
>>> > Spending.
>>> > Spending.
>>> > Debt.
>>> > Debt.
>>>
>>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. *However, I believe he
>> has
>>> indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax cuts
>>> being extended. *Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts, cuts t
>> hat
>>> impacted much of the middle-income Americans. *Then, it will be replace
>> d by
>>> the Obama brand of tax cuts. *No wonder Obama can say he won't need to
>> raise
>>> taxes for this proposal, he is simply re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>>
>> He;s actually lowering the taxes for the middle class and raising them
>> for the top 1% or so. Make over a million you're going to take a big
>> hit. But you can afford it if you make a million. There are rural
>> farmers making 20 grand in upstate New York. If you're making multi
>> millions, you can afford it, ditto the CEO that got double digit
>> millions for a few weeks of work. Nice job if you can get it. By the
>> way, company was taken over in the bailout.
>>
>> I think they can afford a Social Security / Medicaire cap removal
>> also.
>
>Why not just take ALL Bill Gates's money? After all, it would run the gov.
>for what, a weekend?

So you see a slight tax hike the same as taking away ALL of someone's
money? You must be a .... what's the word?

>****ing moron.

Yes, that's it!
-GJ

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Richard Yates added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: ....All of his
>> papers, all of his exams, and even his Harvard Law Review
>> articles are 100% locked up somehow.
>
> You see, this is the kind of patently false claim that
> undermines anything else that might be useful in your post. To
> repeat it says that you are unable to look at a statement and
> make an intelligent, critical evaluation of its validity.
> Anyone looking at that statement should immediately ask:
>
> How could law review articles be "100% locked up" when the
> Harvard Law Review is distributed world wide? Obama was there
> in 1990. Did someone go and buy them all up 15 years after
> they were published? Did they then pay off or murder all the
> people who they bought the copies from? What about the copies
> that are right now in the law library down the street? Did
> they publish replacement copies and smuggle them into every
> law library in the world? Yeah, that's it.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>
I will limit my comments as I do not try to reason with fools but
the burden of proof is on your as all, repeat ALL media news
casters even Keith Oberman have reported that Obama's college
records are sealed, locked, any word you like that means "we cant
see it."

Now, suppose you provide proof - if you can - what Obama's Law
REview articles say and where they may be obtained? Otherwise,
please find something else to talk about.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

> Richard Yates wrote:
>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>> Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: ....All of
>>> his papers, all of his exams, and even his Harvard Law
>>> Review articles are 100% locked up somehow.
>>
>> You see, this is the kind of patently false claim that
>> undermines anything else that might be useful in your post.
>> To repeat it says that you are unable to look at a statement
>> and make an intelligent, critical evaluation of its validity.
>> Anyone looking at that statement should immediately ask:
>>
>> How could law review articles be "100% locked up" when the
>> Harvard Law Review is distributed world wide? Obama was there
>> in 1990. Did someone go and buy them all up 15 years after
>> they were published? Did they then pay off or murder all the
>> people who they bought the copies from? What about the copies
>> that are right now in the law library down the street? Did
>> they publish replacement copies and smuggle them into every
>> law library in the world? Yeah, that's it.
>>
>> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Who ARE those guys?
>
> Butch Cassidy
>

I don't do reasearch for other people but maybe you want to take
a listen to some factual news broadcasts on the subject. This has
been discussed and fully documented by a number of media
representative on CNN, Fox, even MSNBC. But, if you still want
more proof, can you or anyone anywhere at any time cite any place
where these papers covering some 4-7 years of Obama's life may be
viewed? No, well then please go away until you can

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[gemini jackson]

On 15 Oct 2008 17:07:15 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:

>In message , gemini jackson
> done wrote:
>
>> On 15 Oct 2008 11:01:03 GMT, That80sGuy > wrote:
>>
>>>And Obama's plan has a balanced budget for FY2010? Didn't think so.
>>>Obama voted for the $700B bailout. That's $58B a month. So Obama is 3X
>>>more irresponsible than Bush, astounding as that may be.
>>
>> What's astounding is the narrow minded attempt to skew the details to
>> be in favor of your candidate instead of using unbiased facts. McCain
>> voted for the bailout too.
>
>Where have I stated support for McCain? Oh, that's right, I haven't.
>Because I don't. You, on the other hand, have demonstrated that the ONLY
>method you have to "support" Obama is to say that he's not McCain.

Not the 'only' method, but you're starting to catch on.

>
>And even that is wrong. Obama IS McCain. McCain is Bush. Bush is
>Clinton. ALL corrupt. ALL evil. ALL the same.

Ignorant, infantile nonsense.



-GJ

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> I don't do reasearch for other people but maybe you want to take
> a listen to some factual news broadcasts on the subject. This has
> been discussed and fully documented by a number of media
> representative on CNN, Fox, even MSNBC. But, if you still want
> more proof, can you or anyone anywhere at any time cite any place
> where these papers covering some 4-7 years of Obama's life may be
> viewed? No, well then please go away until you can
>


According to Politico, Obama never wrote a single article for the
Harvard Law Review (at least not during his tenure as editor)


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html


As far as "factual news broadcasts", well, I don't believe everything I
hear (or read, for that matter).

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> I don't do reasearch for other people but maybe you want to take
> a listen to some factual news broadcasts on the subject. This has
> been discussed and fully documented by a number of media
> representative on CNN, Fox, even MSNBC. But, if you still want
> more proof, can you or anyone anywhere at any time cite any place
> where these papers covering some 4-7 years of Obama's life may be
> viewed? No, well then please go away until you can
>


According to Politico, Obama never wrote a single article for the
Harvard Law Review (at least not during his tenure as editor)


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html


As far as "factual news broadcasts", well, I don't believe everything I
hear (or read, for that matter).

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[Richard Yates]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> Richard Yates added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>> Here's one to just fan the flames of discord: ....All of his
>>> papers, all of his exams, and even his Harvard Law Review
>>> articles are 100% locked up somehow.
>>
>> You see, this is the kind of patently false claim that
>> undermines anything else that might be useful in your post. To
>> repeat it says that you are unable to look at a statement and
>> make an intelligent, critical evaluation of its validity.
>> Anyone looking at that statement should immediately ask:
>>
>> How could law review articles be "100% locked up" when the
>> Harvard Law Review is distributed world wide? Obama was there
>> in 1990. Did someone go and buy them all up 15 years after
>> they were published? Did they then pay off or murder all the
>> people who they bought the copies from? What about the copies
>> that are right now in the law library down the street? Did
>> they publish replacement copies and smuggle them into every
>> law library in the world? Yeah, that's it.
>>
>> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
>>
> I will limit my comments as I do not try to reason with fools but
> the burden of proof is on your as all, repeat ALL media news
> casters even Keith Oberman have reported that Obama's college
> records are sealed, locked, any word you like that means "we cant
> see it."

The only part that I commented on was the claim that "even his Harvard Law
Review articles are 100% locked up somehow." That is obviously impossible as
I demonstrated. That other records are "locked up" may be true and may have
been widely reported. For you to imply that I am disputing this suggests
that you have no substantive reponse the part of your post that I did
criticize.

> Now, suppose you provide proof - if you can - what Obama's Law
> Review articles say and where they may be obtained? Otherwise,
> please find something else to talk about.

I don't know that there are any. He edited articles and organized the staff.
Some description of this is at:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html

So, your phrase "what Obama's Law Review articles say" presumes without
evidence that there were any. I don't accept the premise.

Please notice that in both of these posts I am making no claims about Obama
or his politics but rather about your obvious bias in presenting a claim
that is impossible and then a question that contains an assumption for which
you give no evidence and may very well be false. The quickness with which
you respond with insults to rational criticism of your post further
undermines your credibility.

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

catpandaddy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> Have a real nice day, OK?
>
> You as well. Though I've only seen a few of your messages
> over here in the newsgroup I'm reading this thread from, I
> like your systematic approach to breaking things down and
> looking at things carefully. Just wanted to say that's a good
> thing.

Thanks for the complement. Noboody is truly unbiased but I strive
for balanced reporting that includes determines facturally as
many places as possible. This isn't at all an ideology debate nor
is it really a bull**** character thingy. I can sort out for
myself the truth from the fiction of the Keating Five or the Bill
Ayers connection.

Incidently, I just tuned into this thread also, so we'll see how
this goes forth. And my I return the complement that you seem to
be more level headed than some I've seen as no matter where your
private views lie, you're also able to be dispassionate and
factual. And, again, have a great day and may the winds of Wall
Street be favorable!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> With a balanced budget and a strong economy.
>
> Hah. The budget was "balanced" by raiding the SS trust fund.
> The "strong economy"? How much stock you buy in March '00,
> McFly? NASDAQ 5000 ring a bell? How much of that 5000 'DAQ
> was REAL? NONE OF IT. All bubble. Oh, and Clinton signed
> the repeal of Glass-Steagal. And he oversaw Frank Raines at
> Fannie. And he expanded the Community Reinvestment Act.
> Bubble. Bubble. Bubble.
>
> Call it Bubba's Bubble.

As you can see, I'm coming into this late but the issue here
isn't raiding the SS "trust" fund, of which there really is no
such thing. It is a virtural raid of a virtual trust fund and has
been conducted by many administrations from both parties over the
year. I'm unsure of the total because there's almost no
transparency but I'd SWAG north of $250-300B.

President Clinton did a number of things unlike a typical
Democrat might do same as President Bush's father, Reagan before
him and George W. Bush have done that are not characteristic of a
Republican. Glass-Steagal is one, NAFTA is another of the
opposite type.

Clinton did not oversee Frank Raines nor the other guy - Johnson?
- at Fannie, or whomever at Freddie, at least not after the mid-
term election in 1994 when Newt Gingrich and the Red Team blew
into town and all the committees changed hands. But, the GSEs
have never been well regulated. Now, what Clinton DID do/start
was the notion of a populist idea of "give everybody a cheap home
mortgage" which evolved eventually into the subprime biz. But,
Clinton wasn't the only guilty one there, as Bush
continued/extended much of the push or at least allowed it to
unfold because both the Red Team and Blue Team were on the take
big time in the form of campaign contibutions. It is easy, BTW,
to understand why guys like Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer could
accumulate a couple hundred grand in contributions from the GSEs,
but Sen. Obama has knocked down well over $100,000 in under 4
years, 3 of which he's been running for president!

Now, as I commented earlier, the bubble that did burst under who
you call "Bubba" was the dot.com but people scarcely noticed tht
this happened late in 1999 but didn't really become apparent
until the 9/11 aggravated recession of 2002+

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> Call it Bubba's Bubble.
>>
>> "Bubba's Bubble"... I like! Can I swipe that for a sig file?
>
> Sure. Just don't use it to support McCain.
>
Money spends the same whether the check is Red or Blue and whether
there is any money in the till or there's a Treasury auction to
"print money".

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the right
things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

catpandaddy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with
>> the blood of tyrants".
>
> That quote refers to people in elected office though. I can
> agree with that quote (and your "Bubba's Bubble" quote by the
> way, that was totally money, no pun intended :-) ) but I
> prefer to stop short of applying it to people I interact with
> on the Net. I'm strange like that.
>
Elected officials are a big problem, surely, but the far bigger
one is from appointees and even bigger is the vast bureaucracy
that exists under the presidential appointee blanket and goes on
and on and on and on no matter who is in the Oval Office. Couple
that with activist judges from both the Left and the Right
legislating from the bench and it is a reciepe for disaster.
Which means that depending on who really wins in 3 weeks, at
least 2 but maybe 3 Supreme Court justices will be up for
replacement. Of course, with a decent case of gridlock by the
losers threatening a filibuster, I think we can count on more
centrist jourists being nominated by either Obama or McCain.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Richard Yates added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> The only part that I commented on was the claim that "even his
> Harvard Law Review articles are 100% locked up somehow." That
> is obviously impossible as I demonstrated. That other records
> are "locked up" may be true and may have been widely reported.
> For you to imply that I am disputing this suggests that you
> have no substantive reponse the part of your post that I did
> criticize.

I know of no member of the media with access to Obama's Law
Review etchings nor am I familiar with any web links for same.

>> Now, suppose you provide proof - if you can - what Obama's
>> Law Review articles say and where they may be obtained?
>> Otherwise, please find something else to talk about.
>
> I don't know that there are any. He edited articles and
> organized the staff. Some description of this is at:
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html

Barack Hussein Obama wasn't just a member of the Law Review, he
was the first black president when a senior. We won't discuss the
help he received to even get in to Harvard Law.

> So, your phrase "what Obama's Law Review articles say"
> presumes without evidence that there were any. I don't accept
> the premise.
>
> Please notice that in both of these posts I am making no
> claims about Obama or his politics but rather about your
> obvious bias in presenting a claim that is impossible and then
> a question that contains an assumption for which you give no
> evidence and may very well be false. The quickness with which
> you respond with insults to rational criticism of your post
> further undermines your credibility.
>
And, I made no claims for or against Obama based on any part of
his life up to and including Harvard Law, just that I have been
unable to either prove or disprove the thesis put forth by every
media person I've seen. That hardly encompasses the entire
universe of the Fifth Estate, just the part that is important
enough to make some portion of the 24x7 cable news reports
running on so many stations, including C-SPAN, CNN, Fox, and
MSNBC to name just 4.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

>> I don't do reasearch for other people but maybe you want to
>> take a listen to some factual news broadcasts on the subject.
>> This has been discussed and fully documented by a number of
>> media representative on CNN, Fox, even MSNBC. But, if you
>> still want more proof, can you or anyone anywhere at any time
>> cite any place where these papers covering some 4-7 years of
>> Obama's life may be viewed? No, well then please go away
>> until you can
>
> According to Politico, Obama never wrote a single article
> for the
> Harvard Law Review (at least not during his tenure as editor)
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
>
>
> As far as "factual news broadcasts", well, I don't
> believe everything I
> hear (or read, for that matter).
>
I read and listen to politico but with a jaundiced eye. If Obama
wrote no articles, just edited those written by others, he'd be
the only Harvard Law Review member of President ever to not.
Doesn't it at least prompt you to see if this even passes the
laugh test? I mean, there were over 400 people in his graduating
class, he was fairly well known as he went through.NOthing to do
with friendships or enemies per se, but to be a prominent enough
member of the Law Review to have any chance of being elected
President would require a very extraordianry presents, doncha
think?

BTW, I didn't say I believed everything I see on cable news, just
that I have NOT seen anything specific to Obama's writings - on
any station,by any commentator, at any time -EVER. Have you?
Forget conspiracy theories or racism and just ask if this passes
the laugh test? Or, can his medical records - likely hiding
illegal drug induced mental problems, cannot be summed up with a
half-page letter from his doctor. McCain ain't been exactly
forthcoming, but at least he allowed selected doctors, such as
CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta, to at least pore over his records for 3
hours.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>
>> I don't do reasearch for other people but maybe you want to
>> take a listen to some factual news broadcasts on the subject.
>> This has been discussed and fully documented by a number of
>> media representative on CNN, Fox, even MSNBC. But, if you
>> still want more proof, can you or anyone anywhere at any time
>> cite any place where these papers covering some 4-7 years of
>> Obama's life may be viewed? No, well then please go away
>> until you can
>>
>
>
> According to Politico, Obama never wrote a single article
> for the
> Harvard Law Review (at least not during his tenure as editor)
>
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html
>
>
> As far as "factual news broadcasts", well, I don't
> believe everything I
> hear (or read, for that matter).
>
> Steve
>

Same post, I think, and my same answer, doesn't pass the laugh
test. NO Harvard Law Review member and certainl no President can
get through with zero articles authored. In fact, a more
reasonable expectation might be on the order or one,two three
articles PER WEEK. That's a very high pressure place to be, not
for the faint of heart or the timid of word.

Give it a rest, you're allowing your like for the man - of which
you have every right to - to cloud your judgment of the facts.
Now, since there are NO articles anyone has ever heard of, and
your citation asserts that, you'd be asking to prove a null or
negative hypothesis by citing absense of examples which is
mathematically invalid. I would expect his name to be on hundreds
of articles over 3 years, at least 10 or so, only 1%,should
surely have leaked even past an intentional coverup unless it is
some major bull**** conspiracy of silence.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with
>>> the blood of tyrants".
>>
>> That quote refers to people in elected office though.
>
> So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank
> Greenberg (not the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?
>
I don't advocate violence but quotes like that, taken in
historical context, do refer to elected officials. Heads of
bureaus of the day, the equivalent of today's agencies, are the
root of the word "bureaucracy" and most surely were sources of at
least suspicious people throughout history, if not necessarily
rising to tyrant. Again, please consider both the words of the
Constitution literally as well as what they don't say. And, we
all know how the Senate's advise and consent power can be
thrarted, right?


--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[Richard Yates]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
> NO Harvard Law Review member and certainl no President can
> get through with zero articles authored. In fact, a more
> reasonable expectation might be on the order or one,two three
> articles PER WEEK. That's a very high pressure place to be, not
> for the faint of heart or the timid of word.

Is there any reason you can offer us to believe that you are not just making
this up? Your writing itself certainly shows no sign of extensive education.
Do you actually know anything about the Harvard Law Review? Have you talked
to any editors or contributors to the HLR? Ever read one? Ever been in
Massachusetts?

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Richard Yates added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>> NO Harvard Law Review member and certainl no President can
>> get through with zero articles authored. In fact, a more
>> reasonable expectation might be on the order or one,two three
>> articles PER WEEK. That's a very high pressure place to be,
>> not for the faint of heart or the timid of word.
>
> Is there any reason you can offer us to believe that you are
> not just making this up? Your writing itself certainly shows
> no sign of extensive education. Do you actually know anything
> about the Harvard Law Review? Have you talked to any editors
> or contributors to the HLR? Ever read one? Ever been in
> Massachusetts?
>
Yes, the truth. But, since you seem to watch proof, I'll give you
a bit of levity. I am a big fan of the old TV show "The Paper
Chase" where Hart becomes the President of the Harvard Law Review
and under the stern tutelage of Prof. Kingsfield, goes on the
greatness. Everything I've ever needed to know, I learned from
TV.

Now, as to the rest, nope, don't know anybody at Harvard Law or
the Review, but I'm sure you do. That said, do you suppose it is
even in the realm of possibility that the combined might of both
balanced and biased reporting across cable TV news, network news,
the NY Times, the Washington Post, hell, the Detroit News or AP
or every damn magazine ever published including Time and News
Week as well as the galactic might of the Almighty World Wide Web
and NOBODY can find a shred of evidence, so it might just be
true?

Or, do we believe only moveon.org and politico plus Rep. John
Lewis or maybe Keith Oberman and his crowd of Bush Bashers
United?

Now, have I ever been to Boston? Yep, a few times. Went to
Worcester ever summer of my youth, been to Boston a half-dozen
times, but by some strange quirk of personality, somehow missed
the tour through Harvard Law.

Now, I query you. How many articles of any note, assigned or HLR,
would each of over 400 students in Obama's graduating class have
written? One, two, 5,000, something else? Common, Richard, you're
entitled to your opinion same as anyone but your political
leanings are coming through kinda fast. Isn't it well past time
for BOTH candidates to stop the bull****, level with the American
people and let's elect a president and not a community organizer?

Now, the very same media that is so asleep at the switch wrt to
Obama's etchings has had no problems whatsoever figuring out who
is responsible for ALL of his jobs both paid and unpaid as well
as who recruited in on the South Side of Chicago as someone
they'd like to groom by assisting him to gain admission to
Harvard Law. I won't pound sand in your ears about affirmative
action, but I'd guesstimate that HL gets what, 10,000+
applications a year, including my former neighbor who wanted to
go either there or University of Michigan Law, had a 4.0 GPA at U
of M pre-law, but unfortunately was the wrong color and wrong
religion had to settle for some obscure law school? This clown
actually had the audacity to then move to Chicago - downtown -
establish himself as a successful appellate court attorney, but
wanted to serve the public and so went to Washington to work for
the EEOC and is now a law professor at a prestigious university
in South Carolina as his his wife who worked for FEMA? So, you
see, I do know some things you seem to think I don't.

I think that this is enough. You think and say whatever you like.
I will also. But, please keep in mind that we are not in the
courtroom, I'm not on the witness stand and you're not the
prosecutor questioning me. Again,the burden of proof is on YOU to
prove the negative hypothesis - why is it that no one can find
Obama's HLR articles. Oh, I know, 'cuz he's the only one ever to
graduate from Harvard without having written anything at all.
Puleeze!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[Mark & Steven Bornfeld]

HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> Same post, I think, and my same answer, doesn't pass the laugh
> test. NO Harvard Law Review member and certainl no President can
> get through with zero articles authored. In fact, a more
> reasonable expectation might be on the order or one,two three
> articles PER WEEK. That's a very high pressure place to be, not
> for the faint of heart or the timid of word.
>
> Give it a rest, you're allowing your like for the man - of which
> you have every right to - to cloud your judgment of the facts.
> Now, since there are NO articles anyone has ever heard of, and
> your citation asserts that, you'd be asking to prove a null or
> negative hypothesis by citing absense of examples which is
> mathematically invalid. I would expect his name to be on hundreds
> of articles over 3 years, at least 10 or so, only 1%,should
> surely have leaked even past an intentional coverup unless it is
> some major bull**** conspiracy of silence.
>


Sorry about the double post--my newsreader tells me you delete
newsgroups when I reply--never saw that before.
I'm no shill for Obama. There's been plenty of dishonesty to go
around. Like just about every election I've voted in (my first was
'72), I'll hold my nose in the booth.
Good luck to all of us.

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

[____]

In article >,
That80sGuy > wrote:

> In message
> , ____
> > done wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > That80sGuy > wrote:
> >
> >> In message , SMS
> >> > done wrote:
> >>
> >> > There are
> >> > some very close races, but if the Democrats can get 60 votes between
> >> > the Democrats and independents than the Republicans will be unable
> >> > to stop the rebuilding of the economy and a coherent foreign policy.
> >>
> >> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
> >>
> >> Obama's economic plan:
> >>
> >> Taxes.
> >> Taxes.
> >> Spending.
> >> Spending.
> >
> > Its American to pay taxes,
>
> You need a bullet in your head.

You'll be talking to my lawyer.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[____]

In article >,
That80sGuy > wrote:

> In message
> , ____
> > done wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > "Boskey" > wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
> >> >
> >> > Obama's economic plan:
> >> >
> >> > Taxes.
> >> > Taxes.
> >> > Spending.
> >> > Spending.
> >> > Debt.
> >> > Debt.
> >>
> >> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he
> >> has indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax
> >> cuts being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts,
> >> cuts that impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will
> >> be replaced by the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say
> >> he won't need to raise taxes for this proposal, he is simply
> >> re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
> >
> > I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush economic stimulus
> > checks were taken from Social Security funds. I would be interested to
> > know if the rumor was true.
>
> Bush, Clinton and others have ALL raided the SS Trust Fund. There is NO
> money in there. NONE. It's all Treasury instruments. And the Treasury
> will default as soon as China and the Saudis stop lending.

Thanks to the Republican administration.

--
Reality is a picture perfected and never looking back.

[John McWilliams]

____ wrote:
> In article >,
> That80sGuy > wrote:
>
>> In message
>> , ____
>> > done wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Boskey" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Democrats? Rebuild the economy? What the **** are you smoking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Obama's economic plan:
>>>>>
>>>>> Taxes.
>>>>> Taxes.
>>>>> Spending.
>>>>> Spending.
>>>>> Debt.
>>>>> Debt.
>>>> Obama has promised tax cuts for most Americans. However, I believe he
>>>> has indicated during interviews that he isn't in favor of the Bush tax
>>>> cuts being extended. Soooo, we may see the end of the Bush tax cuts,
>>>> cuts that impacted much of the middle-income Americans. Then, it will
>>>> be replaced by the Obama brand of tax cuts. No wonder Obama can say
>>>> he won't need to raise taxes for this proposal, he is simply
>>>> re-badging the Bush tax cuts.
>>> I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush economic stimulus
>>> checks were taken from Social Security funds. I would be interested to
>>> know if the rumor was true.
>> Bush, Clinton and others have ALL raided the SS Trust Fund. There is NO
>> money in there. NONE. It's all Treasury instruments. And the Treasury
>> will default as soon as China and the Saudis stop lending.
>
> Thanks to the Republican administration.
>

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

Mark & Steven Bornfeld added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...

> Sorry about the double post--my newsreader tells me you
> delete
> newsgroups when I reply--never saw that before.
> I'm no shill for Obama. There's been plenty of
> dishonesty to go
> around. Like just about every election I've voted in (my
> first was '72), I'll hold my nose in the booth.
> Good luck to all of us.
>
NO need to apologize, if I was the one "complaining". Nobody
knows if theirs a double post due to a glitch but it is only a
few seconds of lost time.

As to your observations, I strongly agree. BOTH sides of the
aisle have plenty of guilt to go around wrt the war in Iraq, the
current fiscal crisis, or any of the other issues that may decide
this election. That said, Americans always seem to have very
short memories in a presidential election. Who'd have thought
that Iraq would be a distant memory of an issue or that we'd be
in a worse crisis than even the Great Depression. No one knows
what the next 3 weeks will bring, but the current dynamic absent
the Bradley Effect may come unravelled yet.

Heard an interesting set of stats yesterday. All the way back to
Carter vs. Ford in 1976 to President Bush in 2004, every time the
Dem running was ahead double digits yet either lost or won by
only a narrow margin. To stay well out of the way of today's
strange debate, look at Carter and Ford. Carter was up some 28%
in summer due mainly to voters who were fed up with Republicans
as represented by Nixon about the same as now with people who are
damn well ****ed off with the Red Team again. Yet, the apparent
tend may still narrow the race to a percent or two on November 4
unless a game changing event occurs.

And, no, folks, I do NOT advocate solving the "problem" by
assasination as some are suggesting.

You go back almost as long as I do - in my case, 1968 while a
senior in college. Literally every time, including this year,
I've found myself in a position of having to vote for "the lesser
of two evils" which I think is a sad, sad commentary on the
realities of how we pick candidates and not, not, NOT the blame
game.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[HEMI-Powered[_2_]]

____ added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

>> > I heard a rumor stemming from the IRS that the Bush
>> > economic stimulus checks were taken from Social Security
>> > funds. I would be interested to know if the rumor was true.
>>
>> Bush, Clinton and others have ALL raided the SS Trust Fund.
>> There is NO money in there. NONE. It's all Treasury
>> instruments. And the Treasury will default as soon as China
>> and the Saudis stop lending.
>
> Thanks to the Republican administration.
>
Per the quotes above and yours, the bailouts will be paid for by
"printing money". In modern times, this term doesn't literally
mean printing greenbacks as it did 100 years ago when we were
still on the gold standard. In today's world, it means that an
auction - a virtual one - takes place when the Fed wants to
either sell or buy money. Thus, printing money is just a fancy
term for borrowing it, but has the rather nasty side-effect of
lowering the value of the dollar and creating inflation.

BTW, that I can tell, using SEC rules for what is called mark-to-
market accounting of assets and liabilities,the true culprit in
the credit crunch no matter who the guilty parties really are,
might result in some $5 trillion with a "T" just for Fannie and
Freddie and, by my amatuer accounting based on the best info I
can accumulate suggests that the all-up price of the presumed bi-
partisan bailout/rescue package advertised at $700-750B, maybe be
north of $2T, trillion again with a "T". However, we will never,
ever know.

Now, to play into your accusation, when Bush 43 took office, the
entire national debt was under $4.7T, It is widely advertised
today as around $9.1T but I have a written document I cannot
release that says BEFORE the most recent bailout,but after
Fannie/Freddie, the amount of just FOREIGN loans outstanding was
in the $16T range. That is so high I'd like to just put my head
in the sand, but sadly, cannot.

Good thing we owe it all to ourselves, huh? Ooops, at least $1T
of it is owed to China who, BTW, is the one that started the
snowball rolling downhill by literally contacting Henry Paulson
with an ultimatum - either back F & F with "the full faith and
credit of the United States" or we will dump your T-bills on the
world market in one fell swoop,fatally killing the dollar.

Now, just in case you don't believe in conspriacy theories, see
if you can either prove or refute this, I cannot do either.

Cheers!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"Efficiency is doing things right, effectiveness is doing the
right things" - Peter Drucker

[CatPanDaddy]

"That80sGuy" > wrote in message
...
> In message ,
> "catpandaddy" > done wrote:
>
>>
>> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In message ,
>>> "catpandaddy"
>>> > done wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> You need a bullet in your head.
>>>>
>>>> And now you threaten violence and murder.
>>>
>>> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood
>>> of tyrants".
>>
>> That quote refers to people in elected office though.
>
> So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank Greenberg (not
> the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?

Actually I am exempting people who simply post something on Usenet. You
actually threatened a simple Usenet poster (can't remember who at the
moment) with a bullet in the head, and all he did was say something you
disagreed with. That's just not defensible.

[CatPanDaddy]

"HEMI-Powered" > wrote in message
...
> That80sGuy added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with
>>>> the blood of tyrants".
>>>
>>> That quote refers to people in elected office though.
>>
>> So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank
>> Greenberg (not the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?
>>
> I don't advocate violence but quotes like that, taken in
> historical context, do refer to elected officials.

Also take into consideration that what started this threadlet, was that he
told a Usenet poster who said something he disagreed with that he deserved a
bullet in his head.

[John McWilliams]

catpandaddy wrote:
>
> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In message ,
>> "catpandaddy" > done wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> In message ,
>>>> "catpandaddy"
>>>> > done wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "That80sGuy" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You need a bullet in your head.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now you threaten violence and murder.
>>>>
>>>> "The tree of liberty could not grow were it not watered with the blood
>>>> of tyrants".
>>>
>>> That quote refers to people in elected office though.
>>
>> So you'd exempt Bernanke, Paulson, Cox, Jamie Dimon, Hank Greenberg (not
>> the baseball one), Dick Fuld, etc. etc. etc.?
>
> Actually I am exempting people who simply post something on Usenet. You
> actually threatened a simple Usenet poster (can't remember who at the
> moment) with a bullet in the head, and all he did was say something you
> disagreed with. That's just not defensible.

Nor is stupid cross posting, whether you started it or not.

--
lsmft

[Lancelot]

"Jürgen Exner" > wrote in message
...
> Micky > wrote:
> And this has exactly _WHAT_ to do with dSLRs?
>
> jue


Democrat Strategically Locking Records-DSLR

[Lancelot]

> wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 12:56 am, Micky > wrote:
> Why is it important to see Obama's college records? Because the media
> has created fantasies around Obama on every issue. You should start
> dispelling them with the easiest one, i.e. the fantasy of Obama's
> "academic degrees and honors".
>


Yo jerkoff, use {OT:} in these garbage off topic posts.

This is all you repugnicans are left with, creating urban legends and
preposterous lies. McCain refuses to release his medical records and
you are okay with that. Dubya never released his military records and
you are okay with that. You still have not been able to get Dubya's
military record published. Now that's one set of records you hope
never sees the light of day. Well actually we have them. Ran Rather
has them but Rove made them look forged. Show some courage and admit
you won't vote for Obama because he is black.

Wow! What an excellent display of frustration and bitterness. I very much
suspect this racist line will be a talking point if Obama fails to capture
the vote. No one can vote against his policies without it being racial?
Nonsensical.