are forgiven, lmao, that was
funnnnnneeeee.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
are forgiven, lmao, that was
funnnnnneeeee.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
"Just to update you
a bit, I just filed a Motion for Expedited Discovery, Extensive Discovery, Deposition of Senator Obama and Howard
Dean, Chairman of the DNC. This may get things moving a bit.
In addition, Senator Obama and the DNC must
have their Answer to the complaint filed by September 24, 2008. The FEC has until October 21, 2008."
here's
the link if you are
interested:
http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/20...iber-explains/
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
KK - I wonder about the validity
of this lawsuit. Does Berg even have standing to file? On what ground? Why is the only news of this story, a
potentially HUGE event, only found on a little blog? Enquiring minds want to know! Any lawyers out there?
OTOH,
there is a lot of action in the Obama camp... reorganizing, re-making themselves etc. And Joe Biden is out there
saying Hillary could be a better VP. Strange doings, what are they up to? Finding a way to wiggle out of a bad
ticket?
Palin has sucked every bit of oxygen from the Dems in this race, and it may just be that they're
desperate to revive the Obama "miracle". Don't think they can pull if off though, a magic trick only works until
the audience figures out the deception.
Indeed, I think Hil would be their nominee if there had been enough
time for Obama to be publicly "vetted".
It's found in a number of news
sources but not the biggest ones. A lawyer buddy introduced me to it in the first place and he has a copy of the
actual filings. I think its legitimate. I can send you the filings in PDF format if you are interested. A little big
to post here but they are available if you want to look through more than 40 pages of legal gibberish. He is classed
as a nut job so it probably will not go anywhere.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I was listening to the BBC on my
drive home from work the other night and they mentioned that the BBC World Service had conducted a poll.
"People outside the US would prefer Barack Obama
to become US president ahead of John McCain, a BBC World Service poll suggests."
Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite.
--Lazarus Long
Our election isn't really any
of their business and opinions of who we should elect are out of line. We have no right to tell others who they can
elect and we should never pay attention to what other countries think about our elections.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
It may effect the whole world
but it still does not matter what any other part of the world wants. We are free to vote as we wish and their
opinions do not matter. By the same token we do not have the right to tell others who to vote for. Perhaps if
countries would get their noses out of other country's internal matters we all would be better off. I think so.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
This was an opinion poll,
was it not? I'm not sure that anyone's telling us who we can elect.
Just as I can express my
opinions about Putin, Tony Blair, or Benito Mussolini, so too can our neighbors express how they feel about the
stupid things we're up to.
Weird, though, because last I heard, Obama was disliked - quite strongly in
places - overseas. I guess they hate the McCain/Palin tagteam just that vehemently. And I can't say I blame
them. In general, between Palin and Obama (and especially after 8 years of a mental midget playing War Games with
the rest of the world), we deserve every bit of the mirth and distain that comes our way.
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
You'll notice that I have not
once expressed an opinion about a leader of another country. Same as I don't express opinions about how others run
their own homes. It isn't my business with very few exceptions.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Courting international opinion
is like having too many mistresses, with the same result.
It's like anything else. You
should do what you believe is right regardless of what others believe or do. A good example were the French. When
they wouldn't go to war for whatever reasons they were ridiculed here in this country. Now we have decided that the
war the French didn't want to participate in is a bad war the French are laughing at us. The honest and honorable
thing to do would be for all those who ridiculed the French and now whine about the war to publicly apologize. I'm
sure there has been a huge public stampede to do exactly that but for some reason I've missed it in the news.
The point is that self honesty is missing when you base your decisions on what others want or believe. Our
elections are meant to select leaders that will work for the citizens of the US regardless of what corporations or
other nations want them to do.
As a side note, I'm very amused to note two contraditions the Obama campaign has
created. How is an inexperienced senator a good presidential choice but a somewhat more experienced govornor a too
inexperienced choice for VP? And, with all the claims of how the Republicans are for big business, how do they
justify claiming the current administration is letting down the little guy by not stopping Lehman from failing?
Lehman is the big guy, the evil corporate giant!
Lastly, it is easy to call names but of all the ones calling
leaders names, I see nothing towards constructive criticism. I challenge any one of those calling names to show a
workable alternative to what was done. In the past I criticized Clinton and Bush on various issues but I also
commended both of them on other things because I try to stay objective and rational while staying away from
childishness. I've never agreed with any leader on everything and I am very opposed to certain things that some
stand for. But, when credit is due I give it. The failure of so many to do the same thing is a sad statement on this
nation and the people in it.
In my opinion, addressing issues and policies and the impact they will have for
the long and short term of this country is the best approach. Name calling, lies and mudslinging by both major
parties and their adherents is both reprehensible and disgusting. We can do better than that!
Last edited by belgareth; 09-15-2008 at 09:13 AM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Yes, that's the entire point in my view.
I think its true whether
you're talking about how a politician handles his/her decisions personally, or the reasoning behind their policy
decisions as leader of this country.
The interests of the US as a nation will never perfectly align
with those of any other country, its always been so. Now, we do some pretty idiotic things at times (thank you
Holmes), but the balance of the equation would be what "world opinion" would be if we withdrew
completely from our engagement in the world.
That's a good point. Perhaps in
selecting leaders we should look at some things that aren't often disclosed now. For instance, if a politician
doesn't pay his or her bills on time or is over-extended do we really want them managing our national debt? If they
cannot get along with their neighbors should they be making foreign policy? If they routinely break the laws should
they be writing and/or enforcing the laws? If they have never worked for a living should they be deciding what is
best for those that do on a daily basis? In all cases I think not but nonetheless we have many politicians in
offices right now that fit one or more of the descriptions above.
How a person handles themselves in their
private life is a strong indicator of how they will handle themselves in a public life. A jerk or a thief always
will be one as will an honest and upstanding person.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Yep. See one
Rangel, Charles. Looooong time congressman and Chair of the House,Ways and Means committee. Wants so badly to raise
all our taxes, yet can't quite seem to wanna play by the same rules.
Of course being a darling of the left and
pretty much a Marxist.good ole Charlie can expect a solid allie in the Main Stream Media.
Charlie Rangel, yikes. He
wants you to do what he's unwilling to do, pay his taxes. And, the wonderful Vichy Dem Pelosi backs him 100%.
These are our leaders.
I see the polls are indicating that the Palin magic dust is starting to wear off and
that Obama is slightly back in the lead.
What I really like hearing is when some politico is retiring or
gets sick, like Kennedy, and they all go on and on about this politician's "self-sacrificing service to their
country, so unselfish, so devoted to public service". What if the whole population demanded that they too be
allowed to be such self-sacrificing personages, guess we're all just too selfish to be in amongst those worthies.
After 7 years of Bush I honestly can't think of one good thing he's done for our country, not one.
Anybody know of anything?
I'm writing in Ron Paul this election, the hell with it.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
I may write in Ron Paul myself
since he seems the only almost worthwhile candidate. On the other hand I may choose to not vote for a presidential
candidate at all since none of them are worth much at all.
Since Bush's failings and accomplishments are in
large part a matter of personal beliefs and perspective that is a non-answerable question in any reasonable sense.
Be honest, would he ever have done anything right in your eyes, regardless of what he did?
I do feel very
strongly that he was a far better man to be running things after 9/11 than Al Gore. But, that again is a matter of
perspective. Your question leads me to another question that seems obvious. What would he have accomplished had
congress not been so stridently opposed to everything he tried to do? We'll never know but I hold congress just as
responsible for the last 20 years worth of screwups as I do any president. More so, in reality because while
presidents come and go, congress changes far less.
Interesting article:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008... <br /> .htm
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
the past it helps
to remember that Bush was not elected by the American citizenry, he was elected by the Supreme Court. Al Gore won
the popular vote. I have no idea if Gore would have made better choices after the 911 attack but I do consider
Bush' choices to be about as bad it could have possibly been. My own opinion is that Bush and Company should have
respectfully resigned on 9/12/01 for their abject failure to protect the airspace of the USA.
Hi Comrades,
welcome to the USSA, the United States Socialist America.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
That's really sad. You should
know that 9/11 was planned and almost completely put into place under Clinton and his people. The balance was
committed under people who were still working under Clinton policies. Go back and study the material available and
you will find that true, completely.
As for Al Gore winning the popular vote, work to change the system if you
don't like it. Bush won the electoral vote and that is the system in place. All the court really did was uphold the
law to the best of their ability. Had they decided the other way I am sure there would be people from the other side
making the same claims.
You have not made a very good argument and in all respect, you should admit at least
that after Clinton's fumble of letting the terrorists into this country and Bush's war in the mid-east, we have
not had another terrorist attack in the US while other coutries have had serious attacks.
Personally, from my
perspective, I believe Gore, the Clintons, and Obama are far closer to socialists than Bush ever could be. But that
is my perspective which is clearly different from yours.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Clinton, Gore, Obama may
have socialist leaning tendencies but Bush is bringing the real deal Socialism, with a capital S, to us this week.
If Congress rubber stamps his proposal to bail out AIG it will be their last act resulting in their complete loss of
any power over the Executive branch. Of course, they will retain their lofty titles, huge paychecks, perks, and top
notch medical coverage but that's about it.
"Beyond the Constitutional deficiencies, the bailout establishes
a dangerous precedent enabling the Fed and/or Government to nationalize virtually any business or property within
the United States without legal authority or congressional approval."
You should read the full
article:
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org...2008-09-18.htm
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
"That's really sad. You
should know that 9/11 was planned and almost completely put into place under Clinton and his people. The balance was
committed under people who were still working under Clinton policies. Go back and study the material available and
you will find that true, completely."
Bel, are you saying that the 911 attack was a US Government sponsored
event?
Myself, I have to say that it seems pretty inconcievable to me that the hijackers and their sponsors
(whoever they are) had such great intel that they were able to pick the perfect day to pull it off (multiple
exercises, NORAD standown). From what I understand the "rules of engagement" were changed in June 2001 giving
Cheney, rather than the Pentagon, control and then changed back to the Pentagon a few weeks after 911.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
"As for Al Gore winning the
popular vote, work to change the system if you don't like it."
I think you already know that I have been
doing that exactly. I campaigned heartily during the NH primary for Ron Paul, manning phone banks and doing other
logistical work for the campaign. Today, my girlfriend and I are helping a woman running for State Representative
here by canvassing a nearby neighborhood with her, luckily - it's a gorgeous day here today.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
board:
Given the mass "hysteria" surrounding this "bailout," I have little doubt that Sec 8 is
but one of many provisions in this bill that are fundamentally unconstitutional and unAmerican.
This new bill
is a lot like the Patriot Act, a sweeping and unconstitutional revision of our basic civil and privacy rights that
went thru Congress faster than the runners in front of Pamplona's bulls. Hell, if 10% of our "elected"
representatives even read, much less analyze, this legislation before voting the way the Administration demands,
then I'd eat my hat. I think Mike Moore needs to bring his truck mounter speaker and start circling Capitol Hill
NOW.
At least our Congresscritters could get something for the people out of this fiasco. A tax hike on the
top 1% of America's income earners (and a similar tax on the wealth of America's top 1%-ers) would go a small way
towards putting the revenue needed to finance the bailout into the Treasury's coffers.
Then again, that
would mean the incumbents on Capitol Hill would have to represent The People and not their friends in the special
interest classes.
SP
Posted by: Serving Patriot | 20 September 2008 at 05:45 PM
(In most other
advanaced nations, the executive leadership would resign to take responsibility for a disaster of this magnitude.
)That should be the first condition when the Dems negotiate this bailout package. Make John Warner caretake
president. The Dems cannot negotiate a package with the current White House in good faith. There is no
trust.
And yes, this is a rich-person bailout package. But is there an alternative?
Posted by: g.
powell | 20 September 2008 at 05:47 PM
What is it about these Republicans that makes them think they can
dictate to the Federal Courts and Congress?
I think it is important to distinguish between Republicans and
Regimists. The supine Democrats have done as much to empower these radicals as the party whose name they have
appropriated.
Posted by: rjj | 20 September 2008 at 05:48 PM
I put one comment in brackets to make it
stand out. I've always felt that 911 was such a failure that we did require new leadership afterwards, and now
this fiasco.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
No, I'm saying that Clinton's
presidency let the terrorists into this country. The attack took months too plan, more months to find and properly
orient the right people then get them into this country. There is no way the attacks of 9/11 could have been pulled
off in under 18 months and more likely 2 years.
I'm not a paranoid imbicile and have no reason whatsoever to
believe anybody in this country's government would do something like that.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
And others were already
screaming that the government had to bail out AIG or the economy would come apart. Like I said, no matter what he
did, in some people's eyes he would be wrong. It also mistates about congressional approval, which has to be
obtained.
Out of curiosity, what do you believe should be done in this situation? It is very easy to criticise
and complain but I see nothing in the way of constructive thought. Personally, I believe the feds owe it to the tax
payers to protect them from bad lending practices, which they did not do, and protect them from loss of their homes
and investments in the event of a failure like this. However, I do not believe the feds or the tax payers owe AIG
diddly squat and we should be holding the executives who made all the bad decisions criminally responsible.
I do
not like Bush and do not agree with the bailout but find the premise of it leading to a socialist state a little
far-fetched. Just out of curiosity, do you support nationalized healthcare aka Universal Healthcare?
In my
opinion, this country is moving more rapidly towards socialism all the time and I blame both parties for it. But
more than that I blame all those that think the country and the people owe them something for just breathing. A
recent example was Obama's statement that it is patriotic for high income earners to pay a greater percentage of
their income in taxes. What an utter crock of BS! How is it patriotic to work harder and smarter then get penalized
for it. The entire concept is no more than redistribution of the wealth.
Last edited by belgareth; 09-22-2008 at 05:01 AM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Good for you. I really mean that. No matter what we agree ar disagree about I truly respect somebody
who is working to achieve what they believe. Thank you for your effort.
But, it does not change the fact that
legally, under the laws in place at the time of the election, George Bush won. Losing then complaining and trying to
get the rules changed after the fact is plain silly.
It really pissed me off recently when the democrats took
delegate voting rights away from two states for breaking the rules then turned around and gave them back. You break
the rules in full knowledge of the consequences you should suffer the consequences without exception. The attitude
that the rules should be changed after the fact or not enforced is a big part of what is wrong with our society
today. No consequences for your actions.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Quotes from rabid liberals, so? I think your suggestion falls
under the catagory of "Any Excuse Will Do" Did you howl for Clinton's head when the patently artificial DotCom
bubble burst? How should Clinton be penalized for allowing the terrorists into this country in the first place?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
"Out of curiosity, what do
you believe should be done in this situation? " A bailout is necessary, there's no doubt about that. I don't
think though that the American public is being told the whole truth. The housing crisis is bad enough but it pales
in comparison to the derivitives crisis which is far far worse. But, back to the housing/mortgage
crisis:
So, we the taxpayers are going to foot the bill for the largresse of the mortgage companies, ok - so
now we own all that bad debt. I suspect though that when the economy turns around (it may take quite a while this
time) that those houses will still be owned by the mortage companies and they will eventually sell them with new
mortgage holders and reap the rewards. That's a sweet deal and a half. So, ok - bail them out but make sure we,
the taxpayers, get the eventual benefit. This is why you are seeing the talking heads on TV pushing hard and fast
to get this done, they don't want Congress to look at the fine print (much the like the Patriot Act). I say, whoa
- hold on and let's take a look at it and revise it where it surely needs revision.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Bookmarks