Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
test!
If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.
If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it,
or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good
laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
Well, I forwarded it.
On 31 Aug 2012 13:05:06 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:21:19 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Han" wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]... My prediction: The
>>>economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is finally clearing
>>>a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins. Obama will do a
>>>better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a better
>>>approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep feeding
>>>the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
>>>======================================================================
>>>Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> At all. +1
>
>We'll when Obama after Obama gives his victory speech. Or we'll suffer
>RomneyRyanLying for 4 years.
Now you have ObamaLieBidenGaffEconomyDead.
Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> Either case will cause suffering. <sigh> I see another few ripples
> like another housing crash and more problems as Obamacare kick in and
> people see how expensive (triple, quadruple?)
???
> it turns out. He hasn't
> controlled the most important things in the healthcare costs: doctors,
> insurance, and hospital expenses. (They've controlled insurance as
> "well" as they did pharmaceutical costs, by selling their souls to the
> devils in that line. Crom save us from our "benefactors".)
I'm no Obama fan - not by a long shot, but fairness dictates that I ask you
just what in the hell you think a president could and should do. Not to let
him off the hook becasue I don't believe he should be - he's the one that
stuck his own head into this noose. But - just what in the hell do you
think or expect could be done in 4 years to turn over an industry and a
culture (lawsuit happy poplution), overnight?
I'll agree that many of his ideas are f*cked, but... the alternative is
what? I'll go along with a good alternative - but what the hell is there?
This does not mean that I support his proposal. It only says that no one
else has come up with a different/better alternative and that is the cryin'
shame!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul"
>>> on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather
>>> have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>
>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
>>> GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>
>>
>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers that
>> you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies.
>> But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the President. I
>> fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining his position on
>> foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>
>I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters there
>were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but then he
>went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an isolationist.
>Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world a happier place.
You've just described Obama.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:21:45 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 9:31 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:54:57 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 3:08 AM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
>>>>> test!
>>>>>
>>>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>>>
>>>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>>>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>>>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>>>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>>
>>> Democrat huh?
>>
>> Gotta be. "_without_ regard to lack of intelligence" gave it away.
>> The next day, that person will go back to work flipping burgers.
>>
>> --
>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>
>
>
>I strongly believe that the "red squeak horn button" on a child's toy
>steering wheel is as effective in giving a feeling of accomplishment to
>the child as dues the "vote click button" does to the voter.
>The advantage of the squeak button is that disappointment rarely
>follows, you get what is promised.
>
>
>
8-)
On 31 Aug 2012 13:06:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Some just can't stand making a decision. They may make the wrong one
>> so simply choose an option that isn't an option at all. They'll never
>> have to blame themselves for making a mistake. Other simply refuse to
>> admit they made a mistake and will stick with it to the end. ...and
>> that's where we are.
>
>Yep. And I could go on :)
You will. That's the point.
On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2 choices.
> Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul" on the
> line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather have him
> there than either of the other two idiots.
>
> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
> GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>
Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers that
you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his challenger.
BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies. But domestic
policy is set more by Congress than by the President. I fell of the Ron
Paul wagon when he started explaining his position on foreign relations,
which I thought was scary.
On 8/30/2012 7:25 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul"
>>>> on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather
>>>> have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>>
>>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
>>>> GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>>
>>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers that
>>> you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies.
>>> But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the President. I
>>> fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining his position on
>>> foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>> I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>> tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters there
>> were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but then he
>> went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an isolationist.
>> Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world a happier place.
> You've just described Obama.
BO is not a naive utopist. BO is a post turtle.
On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>>
>>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed. But the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all. The
>> "independent" voter has no say in who the candidates will be, has no
>> input into the policies, platforms, and promises of the candidate, and
>> has no influence with the ultimate winner.
>>
>> At my polling place, there will be in excess of three hundred names on
>> a general election ballot (national, state, county, local, school
>> board, etc.). To make the "best" decision on each race would require,
>> literally, hundreds of hours of study and preparation. One would have
>> to visit innumerable web sites, collect literature, attend town-hall
>> meetings, check with supporters, and run a gamut of other avenues to
>> reach a truly informed decision. While this might be ideal, virtually
>> no one goes to that much trouble.
>>
>> No, the "independent" voter only gets to choose between Tweedledum and
>> Tweedledee (sometimes also Dumbo).
>>
>> A better approach is to pick a political party most in tune with your
>> views and work within it. Donate money, pass out literature, get
>> elected as a delegate from your precinct to the county convention (and
>> from there to the state convention and from there to the national
>> convention). Knock on doors. Make telephone calls. Put up yard signs.
>> Pass out bumper stickers.
>>
>> It could be about the same amount of work as the first example, but in
>> the latter you can influence the outcome far more than a single vote.
>
>I agree!!!
>
>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
Why?
>Otherwise I'm doing some of
>those things. I have lame and not so lame reasons not to go vie to be a
>delegate.
On 01 Sep 2012 15:07:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 01 Sep 2012 00:47:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> may be used in a political TV or radio ad
>>>
>>>ABC News showed us that this evening, on national TV, when Clint was
>>>mouthing "fuck off" in the news clip on his "performance" last
>>>evening!
>>>
>>>Now, I don't care what he says or when, but I thought it was a little
>>>"off" as an "ad" for family values Republicans ...
>>
>> ABC (and its news team) are slanted _very_ liberal, Han. What's this
>> about a Clint Eastwood ad for family values on ABC?
>
>It wasn't an ad in the literal sense, Larry. It was part of the Eastwood
>"presentation" just before Mitt's speech. So in effect it was an adof
>sorts from the Republican party.
>
>> If it were an ad, that skepticism could be good, but it wasn't. So,
>> what about Michelle Obama's values? She said that the only time she
>> had ever been proud of her country was when it elected her hubby Prez.
>> (though she shallowly denied that)
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw
>
>That statement is perhaps literally true, but taken out of context,
>Larry.
Bull. Her statement contained its own full context, Han. She made
sure of that. What it implies is that she had never been proud of her
country until then. That and the preachers she and Barack listened to
in Chicago tell me that they are not the type of people we want in
front of us on TV, let alone running the country and setting examples
for people to follow.
>> And how about her mouthing "All this for a damned flag?" at the 9/11
>> ceremonies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgWMI0hch8
>
>Some people attach exaggerated importance to symbols. Just my opinion.
>Symbols have a purpose by referring to a broader idea, philosophy or
>similar. I like symbols, but in the US the flag is often holier than a
>piece of the cross to catholics. (or fill in your own analogy).
She was dissing the entire commemoration of 9/11 AND the flag. She's a
true UNpatriot.
>> I understand that her thesis at Columbia was about the _value_ of
>> segregation. The bitz is as bigoted and un-American as it gets, IMHO.
>> I hope none of those are your values, Han.
>
>Sorry, it seems from what I read here
><http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html> a perfectly
>appropriate subject for a middle 80s thesis by a black person. I'm
>fairly sure you remember those times where the civil rights movement and
>its early consequences were discussed ad nauseam. And perhaps you could
>call Princeton a bullwark of liberalism in those days. Perhaps a bit
>hypocritical as well. I don't remember. Princeton was the one
>university that didn't want my daughter.
Oops, yeah, Princeton, not Columbia. (All those schools look the same
to me. ;) It seems to me that for a person who is trying to get out
from under the thumb of racism, writing a thesis about it and living
your life with people of only one color is the exact reverse of what
they would want to do. People who have succeeded the most have
forgotten the color of their skin. Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas,
Connie Rice, O.J. (oops), George Washington Carver, Colin Powell, etc.
all forgot their differences and soared in our society. Michelle wants
to rub our noses in her blackness for some reason. She belongs with
people who do that: The Right Reverends Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah
Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and that temple of innocence, Al Sharpton.
--
The most powerful factors in the world are clear
ideas in the minds of energetic men of good will.
-- J. Arthur Thomson
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:32:42 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to others to
>decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
How is voting for the person you wish to win a "don't care" attitude?
If the rest of you play-it-safers and lesser-of-evilers had only voted
for Perot in '92, we wouldn't have any of the messes we do today.
You had your chance and blew it.
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
On 31 Aug 2012 13:15:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:47:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>
>>>That's the rule in our community.
>>
>> That "rule" has no teeth.
>>
>>>No signs in the yard. Bumperstickers
>>>are OK. Other parts of town get really littered with election stuff.
>>>I am happy here!
>>
>> As long as it's your property (not the city right-of-way), there is
>> nothing they can do to stop you. I suppose you haven't heard of the
>> First Amendment. Yes, it covers *precisely* this situation.
>
>I chose to live here (http://radburn.org), knowing there are
>restrictions. End of story. There are other ways to show my first
>amendment rights that don't pollute my environment.
I didn't know Christie had managed to secede from the US. The fact is that
even *he* cannot repeal the first amendment by himself. Obama will probably
succeed but until then, the First still stands and NJ is still part of the US.
Really. IOW, you're wrong.
Leon wrote:
> Overnight change is going to be harmful even if it makes every one a
> millionaire. We do not need over night change, we need for government
> to not be involved as much and let capitalism run its course.
I fiercely agree!
> 15~20
> years ago some Doctors offices, clinics, drug stores, hospitals and
> such quit accepting insurance and they are still around today. The
> result is that patients that chose to go with the doctors plan, a few
> hundred dollars a year for the whole family, got drastically reduced
> office visits, drug prescriptions, hospital care and surgeries, etc.
I have not experienced that. Our local doctors and dentists did indeed quit
(to a large degree, though not completely), accepting insurance billing at
the time of service. Around here, we have never experienced any Doctor's
plans. Sorry - just not familiar with what that is. Here - you pay, then
you turn it into your insurance. Doctor is fairly removed from that process
now. (at least for those that do not do direct billing to insurance
companies).
> Take the insurance companies out of the equation and doctors have to
> gain patients on their own merits and pricing. And from what I hear
> this works out very well for the patient and doctors. No free rides
> but medical care at 15~25 percent of the cost of that which is
> burdened by insurance.
Again... around here... we are not seeing that doctors have to work to get
patients. It seems that more and more are not taking on new patients. I
can't say that for a certaintly - it's just what it seems like from what I
observe. As far as pricing goes - I have not seen any real difference in
pricing between doctors, or as a reflection of whether they take insurance
or not. But... that is a very narrow perspective of observation.
I know that in our case (the only specific I can really reference), having
no insurance does not make a bit of difference with our family doctor. It
made a HUGE difference with some lab work I had done, and it made a
measurable difference with an Oral Surgeon, so the playing field is not too
flat around here yet. My office visit to my family doctor was $100.
Insurance - $100. No insurance - $100. I left there thinking I might need
to find a new doctor...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:49 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>
>Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
>depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
>are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
>mess.
>================================================================================
>There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care and those that
>believe that someone else would do a better job of it. I vote, but not
>necessarily because there is someone I like. If I dislike both, I vote for
>the one that will do the least damage.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is NOT the way we Americans are
supposed to be running elections, CW. It keeps putting the same old
-corrupt- assholes in charge of the country, continuing their reign of
terror, abuse, and waste. Our CONgresscritters think they're _gods_,
fer chrissake!
>No matter who is running, there is
>always one that has qualities that you like more than the other guy. It
>would be hard to do worse that Obama. I vote because I do care.
As do I. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992 and we scared the holy shit
out of both the Reps and Dems because he got 20% of the popular vote.
The next election 'they' decided to send death threats against Perot's
daughter. He rightfully(?) bailed.
Fuggit. Bring on The Cull. If people continue to think like you do,
we'll keep getting the horrible results we have been getting. What did
Jefferson say about watering the tree of liberty? Maybe it's time.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff109180.html
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:49 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>
>Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
>depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
>are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
>mess.
>================================================================================
>There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care and those that
>believe that someone else would do a better job of it. I vote, but not
>necessarily because there is someone I like. If I dislike both, I vote for
>the one that will do the least damage.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is NOT the way we Americans are
supposed to be running elections, CW. It keeps putting the same old
-corrupt- assholes in charge of the country, continuing their reign of
terror, abuse, and waste. Our CONgresscritters think they're _gods_,
fer chrissake!
>No matter who is running, there is
>always one that has qualities that you like more than the other guy. It
>would be hard to do worse that Obama. I vote because I do care.
As do I.
==================================================================================
So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to others to
decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
>> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
>> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>>
>
>*****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>our.......elected officials."******
>
>
>With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in office.
Is that a question? ;) Bbbut, "It's all Bush's Fault!" Just ask 'em.
Lord Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. It's utterly amazing.
>If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
November ballot, please.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 30 Aug 2012 15:16:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>>>
>>>*****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>>>our.......elected officials."******
>>>
>>>With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>>>longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in
>>>office.
>>
>> Is that a question? ;) Bbbut, "It's all Bush's Fault!" Just ask 'em.
>> Lord Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. It's utterly amazing.
>
>Bush, but the last 2 Congresses share the blame. Mainly because the
>party of no is only interested in trying to make Obama a 1-term
>president. Their obstructionism alone should condemn them.
<sigh> You read far too many liberal papers, Han. I don't consider it
to be anything close to obstructionism when it slows the MASSIVE waste
flow of pork money by the CONgresscritters on a daily basis.
>>>If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
>>>do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>
>That is ostrich-policy - sticking your head in the sand and pretending it
>isn't happening.
I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2 choices.
Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul" on the
line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather have him
there than either of the other two idiots.
(P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
==================================================================
No need to say it. You already know it.
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
Zz Yzx wrote:
>>
>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
Agreed. But the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all. The
"independent" voter has no say in who the candidates will be, has no input
into the policies, platforms, and promises of the candidate, and has no
influence with the ultimate winner.
At my polling place, there will be in excess of three hundred names on a
general election ballot (national, state, county, local, school board,
etc.). To make the "best" decision on each race would require, literally,
hundreds of hours of study and preparation. One would have to visit
innumerable web sites, collect literature, attend town-hall meetings, check
with supporters, and run a gamut of other avenues to reach a truly informed
decision. While this might be ideal, virtually no one goes to that much
trouble.
No, the "independent" voter only gets to choose between Tweedledum and
Tweedledee (sometimes also Dumbo).
A better approach is to pick a political party most in tune with your views
and work within it. Donate money, pass out literature, get elected as a
delegate from your precinct to the county convention (and from there to the
state convention and from there to the national convention). Knock on doors.
Make telephone calls. Put up yard signs. Pass out bumper stickers.
It could be about the same amount of work as the first example, but in the
latter you can influence the outcome far more than a single vote.
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 01 Sep 2012 00:47:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> may be used in a political TV or radio ad
>>
>>ABC News showed us that this evening, on national TV, when Clint was
>>mouthing "fuck off" in the news clip on his "performance" last
>>evening!
>>
>>Now, I don't care what he says or when, but I thought it was a little
>>"off" as an "ad" for family values Republicans ...
>
> ABC (and its news team) are slanted _very_ liberal, Han. What's this
> about a Clint Eastwood ad for family values on ABC?
It wasn't an ad in the literal sense, Larry. It was part of the Eastwood
"presentation" just before Mitt's speech. So in effect it was an adof
sorts from the Republican party.
> If it were an ad, that skepticism could be good, but it wasn't. So,
> what about Michelle Obama's values? She said that the only time she
> had ever been proud of her country was when it elected her hubby Prez.
> (though she shallowly denied that)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw
That statement is perhaps literally true, but taken out of context,
Larry.
> And how about her mouthing "All this for a damned flag?" at the 9/11
> ceremonies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgWMI0hch8
Some people attach exaggerated importance to symbols. Just my opinion.
Symbols have a purpose by referring to a broader idea, philosophy or
similar. I like symbols, but in the US the flag is often holier than a
piece of the cross to catholics. (or fill in your own analogy).
> I understand that her thesis at Columbia was about the _value_ of
> segregation. The bitz is as bigoted and un-American as it gets, IMHO.
> I hope none of those are your values, Han.
Sorry, it seems from what I read here
<http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html> a perfectly
appropriate subject for a middle 80s thesis by a black person. I'm
fairly sure you remember those times where the civil rights movement and
its early consequences were discussed ad nauseam. And perhaps you could
call Princeton a bullwark of liberalism in those days. Perhaps a bit
hypocritical as well. I don't remember. Princeton was the one
university that didn't want my daughter.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
On 01 Sep 2012 00:47:59 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> may be used in a political TV or radio ad
>
>ABC News showed us that this evening, on national TV, when Clint was
>mouthing "fuck off" in the news clip on his "performance" last evening!
>
>Now, I don't care what he says or when, but I thought it was a little
>"off" as an "ad" for family values Republicans ...
ABC (and its news team) are slanted _very_ liberal, Han. What's this
about a Clint Eastwood ad for family values on ABC?
If it were an ad, that skepticism could be good, but it wasn't. So,
what about Michelle Obama's values? She said that the only time she
had ever been proud of her country was when it elected her hubby Prez.
(though she shallowly denied that)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw
And how about her mouthing "All this for a damned flag?" at the 9/11
ceremonies? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJgWMI0hch8
I understand that her thesis at Columbia was about the _value_ of
segregation. The bitz is as bigoted and un-American as it gets, IMHO.
I hope none of those are your values, Han.
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
On 8/31/2012 12:17 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Overnight change is going to be harmful even if it makes every one a
>> millionaire. We do not need over night change, we need for government
>> to not be involved as much and let capitalism run its course.
>
> I fiercely agree!
>
>> 15~20
>> years ago some Doctors offices, clinics, drug stores, hospitals and
>> such quit accepting insurance and they are still around today. The
>> result is that patients that chose to go with the doctors plan, a few
>> hundred dollars a year for the whole family, got drastically reduced
>> office visits, drug prescriptions, hospital care and surgeries, etc.
>
> I have not experienced that. Our local doctors and dentists did indeed quit
> (to a large degree, though not completely), accepting insurance billing at
> the time of service. Around here, we have never experienced any Doctor's
> plans. Sorry - just not familiar with what that is. Here - you pay, then
> you turn it into your insurance. Doctor is fairly removed from that process
> now. (at least for those that do not do direct billing to insurance
> companies).
It is so common in Houston that there are advertisements on TV. The
dentists offices are the most common however there are family care plans.
Since Obama has stirred the shit, it is no longer to easily google and
find these doctor/family plans. Many however host medical radio talk
programs.
>
>
>> Take the insurance companies out of the equation and doctors have to
>> gain patients on their own merits and pricing. And from what I hear
>> this works out very well for the patient and doctors. No free rides
>> but medical care at 15~25 percent of the cost of that which is
>> burdened by insurance.
>
> Again... around here... we are not seeing that doctors have to work to get
> patients. It seems that more and more are not taking on new patients. I
> can't say that for a certaintly - it's just what it seems like from what I
> observe. As far as pricing goes - I have not seen any real difference in
> pricing between doctors, or as a reflection of whether they take insurance
> or not. But... that is a very narrow perspective of observation.
For the most part doctors rely on the being on the list of doctors that
accept a specific type/brand of insurance. Insurance companies
typically point the patient to a group of doctors and then the patient
picks from that group. Those doctors agree to take a significantly less
amount for payment. If every one could pay what insurance pays for out
health care there would be no need for insurance except in extreme
cases. The fact that insurance pays for all medical care these days is
the problem.
>
> I know that in our case (the only specific I can really reference), having
> no insurance does not make a bit of difference with our family doctor. It
> made a HUGE difference with some lab work I had done, and it made a
> measurable difference with an Oral Surgeon, so the playing field is not too
> flat around here yet. My office visit to my family doctor was $100.
> Insurance - $100. No insurance - $100. I left there thinking I might need
> to find a new doctor...
The "plan" doctors typically charge the patient $30~$40 per visit.
Doctors accepting insurance have to charge higher prices to employ staff
to keep up with and collect insurance and for the extra space needed.
And then the rejection rate of payments from the insurance company is
unbelievable. I am sure you have in the past had to file a claim
yourself with an insurance company for home owners, auto, health, what
ever, and I am reasonably sure you probably had to fight or make
multiple attempts to collect. Now think about that with every patient
that a doctors office deals with every day.
Drugs, I was on medication for cholesterol, Vytorin and high blood
pressure, Toporal. With insurance the name brand medication averaged $3
per day when buying a 90 day supply. I switched to generic Simestatin
and Atenenol, mainly because one of the the name brands was no longer
available, and my 90 day drug cost went from $270 to $11. And these 12
cents a day medications are working much better than the name branded stuff.
There is a lot of unnecessary expense in the medical industry and I
squarely blame the insurance industry for 90% of it. The insurance
company charges the doctors an ungodly amount for their referral service
and we save a few dollars when we go to the doctors office.
Imagine you auto insurance company telling you that you can only buy
your new car from a list of dealers if you total your car. Basically
the same thing happens when you get sick.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> "Larry Jaques" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:32:42 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to others to
> >decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
>
> >How is voting for the person you wish to win a "don't care" attitude?
> ==============================================================
> Since you know that that person is not going to win, you are accepting the
> choice of others, those that vote for viable candidates. Like playing a game
> of darts. You decide right off that you can't win so you throw your dart 90
> degrees from the board. You might as well not play. Results will be the
> same.
>
> >If the rest of you play-it-safers and lesser-of-evilers had only voted
> >for Perot in '92, we wouldn't have any of the messes we do today.
> >You had your chance and blew it.
> ================================================================
> I did. He blew it. You can continue to not vote for as long as you want. It
> won't help. You need a viable candidate first.
So, given the choice between having cancer in your left nut or in your
right nut, which would you pick?
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 12:54:17 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>>>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron
>>>>>> Paul" on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly
>>>>>> rather have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider
>>>>>> my GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>>>>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers
>>>>> that you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>>>>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic
>>>>> policies. But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the
>>>>> President. I fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining
>>>>> his position on foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>>>>tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters
>>>>there were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but
>>>>then he went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an
>>>>isolationist. Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world
>>>>a happier place.
>>>
>>> You've just described Obama.
>>
>>LOL
>>Paul frightens me much more than Obama.
>
> You're an idiot. Ryan has a plan to climb out of the hole. Obama
> insists it's not deep enough.
When the RomneyRyan budget gets us into more unemployment and longer in
deficits than Obama's you're calling me an idiot ... Please also look at
this:
<http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp>
>>All politicians stretch the
>>truth and plain lie. That's why we ALL need to push our
>>congresscritters more. And make sure all laws that concern us apply
>>to politicans everywhere as well, and/or vice versa.
>
> You're really good at red herrings and strawmen.
OK ... Am I wrong that ALL politicians lie? Or areyou saying we should
just let them do as they want?
======================================================================
The courts have ruled that politicians have a constitutional right to lie.
On 8/31/2012 1:09 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>
>>
>> For the most part doctors rely on the being on the list of doctors
>> that accept a specific type/brand of insurance. Insurance companies
>> typically point the patient to a group of doctors and then the patient
>> picks from that group. Those doctors agree to take a significantly
>> less amount for payment. If every one could pay what insurance pays
>> for out health care there would be no need for insurance except in
>> extreme cases. The fact that insurance pays for all medical care these
>> days
>> is the problem.
>
> Agreed. The negotiated rates are good for the insurance company, but who in
> the hell can afford that stuff out of pocket?
It is all trumped up expenses. The doctors have to charge higher rates
to make up for the losses on insurance claims.
When I was in the automotive business, specifically the new car
dealership business we had a similar situation. Warranty work.
Warranty work is paid for by the dealer, then the dealer like the doctor
has to collect from the manufacturer and every thing had better be
spotless on that claim. Basically if the claim had the simplest error
which made no difference in the validity of the claim it was kicked back
for resubmitted. Top that off with if the claim was previously
submitted and paid to another dealer it would be rejected and had to be
reviewed by the factory rep. Also like medical insurance the factory
never paid as much for the repairs as the customer. Our arrangement was
that the factory paid a percentage of the retail labor rate. If we
lowered customer pay labor rates, the factory paid lower labor rates.
I am sure the medical industry is not too different.
>
>>
>> The "plan" doctors typically charge the patient $30~$40 per visit.
>> Doctors accepting insurance have to charge higher prices to employ
>> staff
>
> Holy Shit Leon! And that's in Houston? Christ - we're up here in cental NY
> where nobody wants to live and we pay twice to three times that - out of
> pocket! When we had insurance, the fee was about the same, which is what
> really pisses me off! Now - it you are talking about insurance co-pay, that
> is a different story. That rate would not be too bad.
No, these "groups" of care givers had no copay, you paid the annual
family rateofr a few hundred dollars a year and then simply paid as you
went for everything at a highly reduced rate. There was an example
given on one of the local talks shows hosted by a well known woman's
care facility. A caller with another group plan called in to give an
example of his savings. With out insurance, arthroscopic?? surgery for
his daughter's knee was quoted at around $25000, some 15 years ago. His
group plans out of pocket cost was around $2,700. No insurance involved
at all. If this is a down side, you did have to go to this particularly
small group of care givers and their group of hospitals.
>
>
>>
>> Drugs, I was on medication for cholesterol, Vytorin and high blood
>> pressure, Toporal. With insurance the name brand medication averaged
>> $3 per day when buying a 90 day supply. I switched to generic
>> Simestatin
>
> Simvistatin? Same thing I'm on. Much cheaper than the name brand, and the
> blood tests prove it works.
I was border line in need but I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes 5
years ago and they put me on the medication before running tests.
I recently switched and my labs last month showed perfection as the
doctors office indicated. :!)
>
>> and Atenenol, mainly because one of the the name brands was no longer
>> available, and my 90 day drug cost went from $270 to $11. And these
>> 12 cents a day medications are working much better than the name
>> branded stuff.
>
> Shit Dude - $11 for 90 days??? At Wal Mart I pay twice that for a 30 day
> supply. Whatever you do - don't be caught complaining about the cost of
> living in Houston...
Not complaining at all. LOL The BP medication is less than $3 for 90
days, IIRC.
On 8/30/2012 3:08 AM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>
>>
>>
>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
>> test!
>>
>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>
Democrat huh?
On 8/30/2012 9:31 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:54:57 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/30/2012 3:08 AM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
>>>> test!
>>>>
>>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>>
>>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>> Democrat huh?
>
> Gotta be. "_without_ regard to lack of intelligence" gave it away.
> The next day, that person will go back to work flipping burgers.
>
> --
> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>
I strongly believe that the "red squeak horn button" on a child's toy
steering wheel is as effective in giving a feeling of accomplishment to
the child as dues the "vote click button" does to the voter.
The advantage of the squeak button is that disappointment rarely
follows, you get what is promised.
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Han wrote:
>
> I really think that is no worse than lying Ryan: Blaming Obama for
> the closing of a factory in 2008, before the elections. And that is
> only 1 of the 5 major lies.
>
This meme has been thoroughly debunked. The factory DID cease production of
SUV's in 2008, but continued making trucks until April 2009. The plant
didn't close until June of 2009. Further, Ryan never blamed Obama for the
closing of the factory. Ryan DID say Obama exaggerated when he said: "...
this plant will be here for another hundred years."
Actual facts
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/
See also the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel of September 19, 2011
http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html
---
What are the other four? I'm twitching with anticipation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Detroit Free Press wrote the following . . .
http://www.freep.com/article/20120831/BUSINESS0101/308310169/The-facts-about-Janesville-GM-plant-s-closure
TAMPA -- Democrats pounced Wednesday when Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul
Ryan, linked the December 2008 idling of General Motors' Janesville, Wis.,
plant in his hometown with President Barack Obama.
Obama didn't take office until the next month, and the administration, in
administering the existing auto bailout, made no decisions about plant
closures.
Candidate Obama, however, did make a Janesville stump speech in 2008, saying
government backing of a transition to alternative energy manufacturing could
save the plant and others like it.
But he didn't say it would happen or make the promise -- as Ryan's speech
might suggest.
The Free Press looked at this murky issue before.
After Ryan's comments Wednesday in his Republican National Convention
coming-out speech, the Free Press decided to do so again.
On both sides, the charges and countercharges regarding factual soundness
are not as clear as either party might say or wish.
After taking office in January 2009, Obama did ask for more severe cost cuts
from GM and Chrysler, but the choice of which plants would survive or close
was made by GM and Fiat management, which took over Chrysler as part of the
larger auto bailout.
Any suggestion that Obama had anything to do with the closing of GM
Janesville is obviously wrong.
At the same time, that's not exactly what Ryan said in his speech.
Here's the excerpt: "My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked
about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville,
where we were about to lose a major factory.
"A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right
there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if our government
is there to support you ... this plant will be here for another hundred
years.' That's what he said in 2008.
"Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked
up and empty to this day." Obama delivered the Janesville speech before he
locked up the nomination later in 2008.
In the Feb. 13 speech that year, Obama said: "I know how hard your governor
has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress
you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning
out. And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give
you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this
plant will be here for another hundred years."
He then went on to talk about his plan to invest $150 billion over 10 years
"to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5 million new
jobs over the next two decades."
Obama could not have promised to keep the plant open because it's a
privately owned plant. But he did say government assistance could keep it
open. And even though he wasn't president, General Motors and Chrysler did
get word that they would be receiving a bridge loan from the U.S. Treasury
in mid-December, 2008, before the plant stopped producing GM vehicles. It
continued to produce some cars for Isuzu and completely shut down mid-2009.
At the time of the loan from the George W. Bush administration,
then-President-elect Obama believed auto companies needed help to survive.
But he and his aides were talking more about tough rules -- not about saving
Janesville, or other specific plants.
Clearly, if Obama had wanted to bring it up at that time, he could have.
The U.S. Treasury -- which is part of the Obama administration -- has owned
a sizable stake in GM since 2009, so, presumably, if the president and
Treasury had wanted to take a more activist role to reopen Janesville, it
could have. After all, the administration called for and got the firing of
then-CEO Rick Wagoner.
GM officials prefer to run their own company. But saving the plant certainly
could have been discussed among the members of Obama's auto task force, if
they had wanted to do so.
On 8/31/2012 10:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Either case will cause suffering. <sigh> I see another few ripples
>> like another housing crash and more problems as Obamacare kick in and
>> people see how expensive (triple, quadruple?)
>
> ???
>
>> it turns out. He hasn't
>> controlled the most important things in the healthcare costs: doctors,
>> insurance, and hospital expenses. (They've controlled insurance as
>> "well" as they did pharmaceutical costs, by selling their souls to the
>> devils in that line. Crom save us from our "benefactors".)
>
> I'm no Obama fan - not by a long shot, but fairness dictates that I ask you
> just what in the hell you think a president could and should do. Not to let
> him off the hook becasue I don't believe he should be - he's the one that
> stuck his own head into this noose. But - just what in the hell do you
> think or expect could be done in 4 years to turn over an industry and a
> culture (lawsuit happy poplution), overnight?
Overnight change is going to be harmful even if it makes every one a
millionaire. We do not need over night change, we need for government
to not be involved as much and let capitalism run its course. 15~20
years ago some Doctors offices, clinics, drug stores, hospitals and such
quit accepting insurance and they are still around today. The result is
that patients that chose to go with the doctors plan, a few hundred
dollars a year for the whole family, got drastically reduced office
visits, drug prescriptions, hospital care and surgeries, etc. Take the
insurance companies out of the equation and doctors have to gain
patients on their own merits and pricing. And from what I hear this
works out very well for the patient and doctors. No free rides but
medical care at 15~25 percent of the cost of that which is burdened by
insurance.
>
On 8/31/2012 10:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>>
>> Either case will cause suffering.<sigh> I see another few ripples
>> like another housing crash and more problems as Obamacare kick in and
>> people see how expensive (triple, quadruple?)
>
> ???
>
>> it turns out. He hasn't
>> controlled the most important things in the healthcare costs: doctors,
>> insurance, and hospital expenses. (They've controlled insurance as
>> "well" as they did pharmaceutical costs, by selling their souls to the
>> devils in that line. Crom save us from our "benefactors".)
>
> I'm no Obama fan - not by a long shot, but fairness dictates that I ask you
> just what in the hell you think a president could and should do. Not to let
> him off the hook becasue I don't believe he should be - he's the one that
> stuck his own head into this noose. But - just what in the hell do you
> think or expect could be done in 4 years to turn over an industry and a
> culture (lawsuit happy poplution), overnight?
>
> I'll agree that many of his ideas are f*cked, but... the alternative is
> what? I'll go along with a good alternative - but what the hell is there?
> This does not mean that I support his proposal. It only says that no one
> else has come up with a different/better alternative and that is the cryin'
> shame!
>
Best alternative - none of the above.
Our system is rigged.
We don't have a vote of No Confidence.
Han wrote:
>
> I really think that is no worse than lying Ryan: Blaming Obama for
> the closing of a factory in 2008, before the elections. And that is
> only 1 of the 5 major lies.
>
This meme has been thoroughly debunked. The factory DID cease production of
SUV's in 2008, but continued making trucks until April 2009. The plant
didn't close until June of 2009. Further, Ryan never blamed Obama for the
closing of the factory. Ryan DID say Obama exaggerated when he said: "...
this plant will be here for another hundred years."
Actual facts
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on-ryans-speech/
See also the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel of September 19, 2011
http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html
---
What are the other four? I'm twitching with anticipation.
Han wrote:
>
> Sorry, Keith, it has been litigated to the highest court here, very
> recently, and the not-for-profit corporation can do these long
> established things. Moreover, on a related but separate subject,
> first amendment or not, there are rules for where you can put
> billboards.
Right. The interesting part is that there are NO limits, including profanity
or nudity, that may be used in a political TV or radio ad.
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>
>
>
> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a
> great test!
>
> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>
> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
> everyone.
>
> If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
> If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
>
> If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
> situation.
> A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
>
> If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
> Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
>
> If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
> A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
> silenced.
>
> If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
> for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
> A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
>
> If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a
> good laugh.
>
> A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
>
> Well, I forwarded it.
Well, to each his (or her) own. Some things I agree with, some I don't.
Do I have to explain more?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>
>>
>>
>>If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a
>>great test!
>>
>>If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>
>>If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
>>If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
>>everyone.
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>
>>If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
>>If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>
>>If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
>>situation.
>>A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
>>Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
>>
>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
>>A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
>>silenced.
>>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
>>for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
>>A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.>
>>If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a
>>good laugh.
>>
>>A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
>>
>
> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>>Well, I forwarded it.
Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:k1nqua$ktv$1
@speranza.aioe.org:
> *****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
> our.......elected officials."******
I agree that Obama could have been more agressive personally in pushing
his agenda. Reid and Pelosi are really only soso leaders. Although they
did get the ACA through!!!
> With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
> longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in office.
Well, Congress has to make the laws, and they haven't been very good at
it, in multiple respects. Whether that is the fault of the party of no,
or the fault of a lack of leadership, I don't know. Perhaps both have
failed?
> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
> do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
I was very disappointed at the lies that Ryan promulgated yesterday
(according to the reports, I hate the guy, so I didn't listen to him).
<http://tinyurl.com/cjwbq9c>
<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/in-ryan-critique-of-obama-
omissions-help-make-the-case/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto>
Ann apparently gave a good speech, according to nrc.nl, but I don't need
her love (for me, or anyone else). Christie was a bombastic selfserving
ass, as usual.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>>
>>*****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>>our.......elected officials."******
>>
>>With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>>longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in
>>office.
>
> Is that a question? ;) Bbbut, "It's all Bush's Fault!" Just ask 'em.
> Lord Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. It's utterly amazing.
Bush, but the last 2 Congresses share the blame. Mainly because the
party of no is only interested in trying to make Obama a 1-term
president. Their obstructionism alone should condemn them.
>>If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
>>do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>
> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
> November ballot, please.
That is ostrich-policy - sticking your head in the sand and pretending it
isn't happening.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>>
>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>
> Agreed. But the "independent" voter is the most dependent of all. The
> "independent" voter has no say in who the candidates will be, has no
> input into the policies, platforms, and promises of the candidate, and
> has no influence with the ultimate winner.
>
> At my polling place, there will be in excess of three hundred names on
> a general election ballot (national, state, county, local, school
> board, etc.). To make the "best" decision on each race would require,
> literally, hundreds of hours of study and preparation. One would have
> to visit innumerable web sites, collect literature, attend town-hall
> meetings, check with supporters, and run a gamut of other avenues to
> reach a truly informed decision. While this might be ideal, virtually
> no one goes to that much trouble.
>
> No, the "independent" voter only gets to choose between Tweedledum and
> Tweedledee (sometimes also Dumbo).
>
> A better approach is to pick a political party most in tune with your
> views and work within it. Donate money, pass out literature, get
> elected as a delegate from your precinct to the county convention (and
> from there to the state convention and from there to the national
> convention). Knock on doors. Make telephone calls. Put up yard signs.
> Pass out bumper stickers.
>
> It could be about the same amount of work as the first example, but in
> the latter you can influence the outcome far more than a single vote.
I agree!!!
Rules say I can't put signs in my yard. Otherwise I'm doing some of
those things. I have lame and not so lame reasons not to go vie to be a
delegate.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>> therm?
>>
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>>
>> --
>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>
> Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
> depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those
> who are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue
> with this mess.
> =======================================================================
> ========= There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care
> and those that believe that someone else would do a better job of it.
> I vote, but not necessarily because there is someone I like. If I
> dislike both, I vote for the one that will do the least damage. No
> matter who is running, there is always one that has qualities that you
> like more than the other guy. It would be hard to do worse that Obama.
> I vote because I do care.
My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is
finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins.
Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a
better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep
feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 30 Aug 2012 15:13:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:k1nqua$ktv$1
>>@speranza.aioe.org:
>>
>>> *****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>>> our.......elected officials."******
>>
>>I agree that Obama could have been more agressive personally in
>>pushing his agenda. Reid and Pelosi are really only soso leaders.
>>Although they did get the ACA through!!!
>
> Jesus Christ, Han. Didn't you hear what Pelosi said about the bill?
> "We need to pass it to know what's in it." This is LEADERSHIP?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
>
> Ditto Reid's idiocies.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmGO_bTgIf4
> Shades of Keith Olberman, eh? <g>
> http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=harry+reid+scandal
> Youtube comes up with 137 videos.
> Do you really have -any- faith whatsoever in either of those two
> liemongers?
I really think that is no worse than lying Ryan: Blaming Obama for the
closing of a factory in 2008, before the elections. And that is only 1
of the 5 major lies.
>>> With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>>> longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in
>>> office.
>>
>>Well, Congress has to make the laws, and they haven't been very good
>>at it, in multiple respects. Whether that is the fault of the party
>>of no, or the fault of a lack of leadership, I don't know. Perhaps
>>both have failed?
>
> CONgress has failed, bitterly and in total corruption, and that goes
> for both sides of the aisle.
Agree!!
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>> therm?
>>
>>I was very disappointed at the lies that Ryan promulgated yesterday
>>(according to the reports, I hate the guy, so I didn't listen to him).
>><http://tinyurl.com/cjwbq9c>
>><http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/in-ryan-critique-of-obam
>>a- omissions-help-make-the-case/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto>
>
> I'm sure the DNC and/or the NYT could give nice, fair critiques of RNC
> functions. Uh, huh.
It wasn't fair? You mean they said the truth, right, but it was slanted?
> I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune
> during my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are
> empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
> Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that.
> -LJ
Well, I think some have said that the Father of them all George
Washington really knew how to write an expense report ...
But maybe I am just as much a hopeless cynic as you, Larry!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
>
> Why?
That's the rule in our community. No signs in the yard. Bumperstickers
are OK. Other parts of town get really littered with election stuff. I am
happy here!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul"
>> on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather
>> have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>
>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
>> GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>
>
> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers that
> you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies.
> But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the President. I
> fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining his position on
> foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters there
were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but then he
went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an isolationist.
Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world a happier place.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron
>>>> Paul" on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly
>>>> rather have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>>
>>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider
>>>> my GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers
>>> that you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies.
>>> But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the President.
>>> I fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining his position
>>> on foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>>
>>I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>>tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters
>>there were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but
>>then he went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an
>>isolationist. Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world a
>>happier place.
>
> You've just described Obama.
LOL
Paul frightens me much more than Obama. All politicians stretch the
truth and plain lie. That's why we ALL need to push our
congresscritters more. And make sure all laws that concern us apply to
politicans everywhere as well, and/or vice versa.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 00:38:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>>>> therm?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>>>> November ballot, please.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>>>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>>>
>>> Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the
>>> obama depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative.
>>> Those who are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to
>>> continue with this mess.
>>> =====================================================================
>>> == ========= There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't
>>> care and those that believe that someone else would do a better job
>>> of it. I vote, but not necessarily because there is someone I like.
>>> If I dislike both, I vote for the one that will do the least damage.
>>> No matter who is running, there is always one that has qualities
>>> that you like more than the other guy. It would be hard to do worse
>>> that Obama. I vote because I do care.
>>
>>My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess
>>is finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who
>>wins. Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he
>>will have a better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course
>>we keep feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle
>>class.
>
> The economy would have already taken off if Obama didn't insist on
> keeping his boot on the necks of small businesses. Every time it
> tries, he comes up with more reasons for them to sit on their hands.
And here I hear that Obama has instituted tax breaks etc etc for small
businesses. Whom to believe? :)
Regulations are indeed what kills time and diverts energy from the goal.
Which is a very large part of my decision to retire when I did. I wish
that there was a more simple way to say "behave properly, or else". This
refers to (example) the interminable repeats of tests and certifications
that you behave ethically in human research. With slight alterations in
the rules and forms, so you really, really have to read the bureaucratese
before you answer. Of course these types of things have really increased
(unproductive) employment. More secretaries, rule makers, test readers,
etc. But what is the alternative? We're supposed to have a presumption
of innocence before punishing the guy who did whatever he is accused of,
so we need evidence. Which in reality (Seriously!) means it isn't as bad
to have done some wrong, as it is to have fudged the data, or failed to
document what you did or somethign along those lines. No matter that did
spill this or that and cleaned it up properly. You need the
documentation.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:21:19 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Han" wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]... My prediction: The
>>economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is finally clearing
>>a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins. Obama will do a
>>better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a better
>>approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep feeding
>>the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
>>======================================================================
>>Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
>
> At all. +1
We'll when Obama after Obama gives his victory speech. Or we'll suffer
RomneyRyanLying for 4 years.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Some just can't stand making a decision. They may make the wrong one
> so simply choose an option that isn't an option at all. They'll never
> have to blame themselves for making a mistake. Other simply refuse to
> admit they made a mistake and will stick with it to the end. ...and
> that's where we are.
Yep. And I could go on :)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:32:42 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to
>>others to decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
>
> How is voting for the person you wish to win a "don't care" attitude?
> If the rest of you play-it-safers and lesser-of-evilers had only voted
> for Perot in '92, we wouldn't have any of the messes we do today.
> You had your chance and blew it.
That would work in a multiparty coalition form of government. It has
some pros, but for a superpower as is the US, too many cons. Because it
would mean that the head of government would serve at the pleasure of
Parliament. Which means that if a minor party to the coalition bails,
out of spite or principle, there is a lame duck government until the next
elections can be held. Won't work in the US, despite the many factions
in both Rs and Ds.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> So, given the choice between having cancer in your left nut or in your
> right nut, which would you pick?
You pick the nut you like most and treat it, so it does what you like it to
do. Simple, really!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 00:47:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>>That's the rule in our community.
>
> That "rule" has no teeth.
>
>>No signs in the yard. Bumperstickers
>>are OK. Other parts of town get really littered with election stuff.
>>I am happy here!
>
> As long as it's your property (not the city right-of-way), there is
> nothing they can do to stop you. I suppose you haven't heard of the
> First Amendment. Yes, it covers *precisely* this situation.
I chose to live here (http://radburn.org), knowing there are
restrictions. End of story. There are other ways to show my first
amendment rights that don't pollute my environment.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 12:54:17 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>>>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron
>>>>>> Paul" on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly
>>>>>> rather have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider
>>>>>> my GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>>>>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers
>>>>> that you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>>>>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic
>>>>> policies. But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the
>>>>> President. I fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining
>>>>> his position on foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>>>>
>>>>I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>>>>tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters
>>>>there were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but
>>>>then he went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an
>>>>isolationist. Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world
>>>>a happier place.
>>>
>>> You've just described Obama.
>>
>>LOL
>>Paul frightens me much more than Obama.
>
> You're an idiot. Ryan has a plan to climb out of the hole. Obama
> insists it's not deep enough.
When the RomneyRyan budget gets us into more unemployment and longer in
deficits than Obama's you're calling me an idiot ... Please also look at
this:
<http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/nationaldebt.asp>
>>All politicians stretch the
>>truth and plain lie. That's why we ALL need to push our
>>congresscritters more. And make sure all laws that concern us apply
>>to politicans everywhere as well, and/or vice versa.
>
> You're really good at red herrings and strawmen.
OK ... Am I wrong that ALL politicians lie? Or areyou saying we should
just let them do as they want?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/31/2012 10:03 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Either case will cause suffering. <sigh> I see another few ripples
>>> like another housing crash and more problems as Obamacare kick in
>>> and people see how expensive (triple, quadruple?)
>>
>> ???
>>
>>> it turns out. He hasn't
>>> controlled the most important things in the healthcare costs:
>>> doctors, insurance, and hospital expenses. (They've controlled
>>> insurance as "well" as they did pharmaceutical costs, by selling
>>> their souls to the devils in that line. Crom save us from our
>>> "benefactors".)
>>
>> I'm no Obama fan - not by a long shot, but fairness dictates that I
>> ask you just what in the hell you think a president could and should
>> do. Not to let him off the hook becasue I don't believe he should be
>> - he's the one that stuck his own head into this noose. But - just
>> what in the hell do you think or expect could be done in 4 years to
>> turn over an industry and a culture (lawsuit happy poplution),
>> overnight?
>
> Overnight change is going to be harmful even if it makes every one a
> millionaire. We do not need over night change, we need for government
> to not be involved as much and let capitalism run its course. 15~20
> years ago some Doctors offices, clinics, drug stores, hospitals and
> such quit accepting insurance and they are still around today. The
> result is that patients that chose to go with the doctors plan, a few
> hundred dollars a year for the whole family, got drastically reduced
> office visits, drug prescriptions, hospital care and surgeries, etc.
> Take the insurance companies out of the equation and doctors have to
> gain patients on their own merits and pricing. And from what I hear
> this works out very well for the patient and doctors. No free rides
> but medical care at 15~25 percent of the cost of that which is
> burdened by insurance.
I have experienced something like that with our dentist. When I retired
I lost dental coverage. Now I pay him roughly (I think and hope) what he
would have gotten from the insurance company, but I pay him within a week
of when he bills, in full.
And, btw, Medicare apparently is better in paying bills than most
insurance companies, if you're in their systems, which in my case took
just a bit of time.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 8/31/2012 12:17 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Overnight change is going to be harmful even if it makes every one a
>>> millionaire. We do not need over night change, we need for
>>> government to not be involved as much and let capitalism run its
>>> course.
>>
>> I fiercely agree!
>>
>>> 15~20
>>> years ago some Doctors offices, clinics, drug stores, hospitals and
>>> such quit accepting insurance and they are still around today. The
>>> result is that patients that chose to go with the doctors plan, a
>>> few hundred dollars a year for the whole family, got drastically
>>> reduced office visits, drug prescriptions, hospital care and
>>> surgeries, etc.
>>
>> I have not experienced that. Our local doctors and dentists did
>> indeed quit (to a large degree, though not completely), accepting
>> insurance billing at the time of service. Around here, we have never
>> experienced any Doctor's plans. Sorry - just not familiar with what
>> that is. Here - you pay, then you turn it into your insurance.
>> Doctor is fairly removed from that process now. (at least for those
>> that do not do direct billing to insurance companies).
>
> It is so common in Houston that there are advertisements on TV. The
> dentists offices are the most common however there are family care
> plans.
>
> Since Obama has stirred the shit, it is no longer to easily google and
> find these doctor/family plans. Many however host medical radio talk
> programs.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Take the insurance companies out of the equation and doctors have to
>>> gain patients on their own merits and pricing. And from what I hear
>>> this works out very well for the patient and doctors. No free rides
>>> but medical care at 15~25 percent of the cost of that which is
>>> burdened by insurance.
>>
>> Again... around here... we are not seeing that doctors have to work
>> to get patients. It seems that more and more are not taking on new
>> patients. I can't say that for a certaintly - it's just what it
>> seems like from what I observe. As far as pricing goes - I have not
>> seen any real difference in pricing between doctors, or as a
>> reflection of whether they take insurance or not. But... that is a
>> very narrow perspective of observation.
>
> For the most part doctors rely on the being on the list of doctors
> that accept a specific type/brand of insurance. Insurance companies
> typically point the patient to a group of doctors and then the patient
> picks from that group. Those doctors agree to take a significantly
> less amount for payment. If every one could pay what insurance pays
> for out health care there would be no need for insurance except in
> extreme cases. The fact that insurance pays for all medical care
> these days is the problem.
>
>
>>
>> I know that in our case (the only specific I can really reference),
>> having no insurance does not make a bit of difference with our family
>> doctor. It made a HUGE difference with some lab work I had done, and
>> it made a measurable difference with an Oral Surgeon, so the playing
>> field is not too flat around here yet. My office visit to my family
>> doctor was $100. Insurance - $100. No insurance - $100. I left
>> there thinking I might need to find a new doctor...
>
> The "plan" doctors typically charge the patient $30~$40 per visit.
> Doctors accepting insurance have to charge higher prices to employ
> staff to keep up with and collect insurance and for the extra space
> needed. And then the rejection rate of payments from the insurance
> company is unbelievable. I am sure you have in the past had to file a
> claim yourself with an insurance company for home owners, auto,
> health, what ever, and I am reasonably sure you probably had to fight
> or make multiple attempts to collect. Now think about that with every
> patient that a doctors office deals with every day.
>
> Drugs, I was on medication for cholesterol, Vytorin and high blood
> pressure, Toporal. With insurance the name brand medication averaged
> $3 per day when buying a 90 day supply. I switched to generic
> Simestatin and Atenenol, mainly because one of the the name brands
> was no longer available, and my 90 day drug cost went from $270 to
> $11. And these 12 cents a day medications are working much better
> than the name branded stuff.
>
> There is a lot of unnecessary expense in the medical industry and I
> squarely blame the insurance industry for 90% of it. The insurance
> company charges the doctors an ungodly amount for their referral
> service and we save a few dollars when we go to the doctors office.
>
> Imagine you auto insurance company telling you that you can only buy
> your new car from a list of dealers if you total your car. Basically
> the same thing happens when you get sick.
The generics have caused a big reduction in price of medications. Your
experience is (should be) universal in this regard.
My insurance had generally $20 copays for doctors. With Medicare (and my
plus administered through Aetna) no more copays but I have to satisfy a
yearly deductible.
Obamacare is (supposed to) take away most of the back and forth bickering
between you, doctor and insurance company regarding payments.
The problem with medical care is that for some portion you could go and
haggle/google/negotiate for the best doctor-price point. For others you
will take the emergency care and worry about paying later. That's where
you can now run into problems, and hopefully with Obamacare that will be
less of a problem.
I agree that medical care costs are driven up FUBAR-like by insane
administrative costs.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
>
> Debt is bad for those with money. It's good for those the lifetime
> welfare recipients. Think of it as trickle-up-poverty.
> ===========================================================
>
> +1
>
+1, another type of inflation
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Dave in Texas" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Han wrote:
>>
>> I really think that is no worse than lying Ryan: Blaming Obama for
>> the closing of a factory in 2008, before the elections. And that is
>> only 1 of the 5 major lies.
>>
>
> This meme has been thoroughly debunked. The factory DID cease
> production of SUV's in 2008, but continued making trucks until April
> 2009. The plant didn't close until June of 2009. Further, Ryan never
> blamed Obama for the closing of the factory. Ryan DID say Obama
> exaggerated when he said: "... this plant will be here for another
> hundred years."
>
> Actual facts
> http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/30/fact-checking-the-factcheckers-on
> -ryans-speech/
>
> See also the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel of September 19, 2011
> http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html
>
> ---
>
> What are the other four? I'm twitching with anticipation.
>
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah. And the Detroit Free Press wrote the following
> . . .
> http://www.freep.com/article/20120831/BUSINESS0101/3083
> 10169/The-facts-about-Janesville-GM-plant-s-closure
>
>
>
> TAMPA -- Democrats pounced Wednesday when Mitt Romney's running mate,
> Paul Ryan, linked the December 2008 idling of General Motors'
> Janesville, Wis., plant in his hometown with President Barack Obama.
>
> Obama didn't take office until the next month, and the administration,
> in administering the existing auto bailout, made no decisions about
> plant closures.
>
> Candidate Obama, however, did make a Janesville stump speech in 2008,
> saying government backing of a transition to alternative energy
> manufacturing could save the plant and others like it.
>
> But he didn't say it would happen or make the promise -- as Ryan's
> speech might suggest.
>
> The Free Press looked at this murky issue before.
>
> After Ryan's comments Wednesday in his Republican National Convention
> coming-out speech, the Free Press decided to do so again.
>
> On both sides, the charges and countercharges regarding factual
> soundness are not as clear as either party might say or wish.
>
> After taking office in January 2009, Obama did ask for more severe
> cost cuts from GM and Chrysler, but the choice of which plants would
> survive or close was made by GM and Fiat management, which took over
> Chrysler as part of the larger auto bailout.
>
> Any suggestion that Obama had anything to do with the closing of GM
> Janesville is obviously wrong.
>
> At the same time, that's not exactly what Ryan said in his speech.
>
> Here's the excerpt: "My home state voted for President Obama. When he
> talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in
> Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.
>
> "A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant.
> Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: 'I believe that if
> our government is there to support you ... this plant will be here for
> another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008.
>
> "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is
> locked up and empty to this day." Obama delivered the Janesville
> speech before he locked up the nomination later in 2008.
>
> In the Feb. 13 speech that year, Obama said: "I know how hard your
> governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how
> much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient
> vehicles you're churning out. And I believe that if our government is
> there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool
> and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another
> hundred years."
>
> He then went on to talk about his plan to invest $150 billion over 10
> years "to establish a green energy sector that will create up to 5
> million new jobs over the next two decades."
>
> Obama could not have promised to keep the plant open because it's a
> privately owned plant. But he did say government assistance could keep
> it open. And even though he wasn't president, General Motors and
> Chrysler did get word that they would be receiving a bridge loan from
> the U.S. Treasury in mid-December, 2008, before the plant stopped
> producing GM vehicles. It continued to produce some cars for Isuzu and
> completely shut down mid-2009.
>
> At the time of the loan from the George W. Bush administration,
> then-President-elect Obama believed auto companies needed help to
> survive. But he and his aides were talking more about tough rules --
> not about saving Janesville, or other specific plants.
>
> Clearly, if Obama had wanted to bring it up at that time, he could
> have.
>
> The U.S. Treasury -- which is part of the Obama administration -- has
> owned a sizable stake in GM since 2009, so, presumably, if the
> president and Treasury had wanted to take a more activist role to
> reopen Janesville, it could have. After all, the administration called
> for and got the firing of then-CEO Rick Wagoner.
>
> GM officials prefer to run their own company. But saving the plant
> certainly could have been discussed among the members of Obama's auto
> task force, if they had wanted to do so.
Good summary. There were a lot of ifs in the pieces I read. You are
saying that the GM (who built that) decided to shut it, not Obama.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> On 31 Aug 2012 13:15:55 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:47:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>>>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>>That's the rule in our community.
>>>
>>> That "rule" has no teeth.
>>>
>>>>No signs in the yard. Bumperstickers
>>>>are OK. Other parts of town get really littered with election
>>>>stuff. I am happy here!
>>>
>>> As long as it's your property (not the city right-of-way), there is
>>> nothing they can do to stop you. I suppose you haven't heard of the
>>> First Amendment. Yes, it covers *precisely* this situation.
>>
>>I chose to live here (http://radburn.org), knowing there are
>>restrictions. End of story. There are other ways to show my first
>>amendment rights that don't pollute my environment.
>
> I didn't know Christie had managed to secede from the US. The fact is
> that even *he* cannot repeal the first amendment by himself. Obama
> will probably succeed but until then, the First still stands and NJ is
> still part of the US. Really. IOW, you're wrong.
Sorry, Keith, it has been litigated to the highest court here, very
recently, and the not-for-profit corporation can do these long
established things. Moreover, on a related but separate subject, first
amendment or not, there are rules for where you can put billboards.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> I chose to live here (http://radburn.org), knowing there are
>> restrictions. End of story.
>
> Yup - those are the decisions we are entitled to make. I'm with you
> on the privledge to make that decision Han.
>
>> There are other ways to show my first
>> amendment rights that don't pollute my environment.
>
> Pollute? A bit of an extreme statement, don't ya think? (although -
> I hate political signs in yards myself...)
That's what I mean, Mike. In oher parts of town the yard signs
proliferate like mad rabbits in early spring. People even put them in
the public right of way along the roads.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> Obamacare is (supposed to) take away most of the back and forth
>> bickering between you, doctor and insurance company regarding
>> payments.
>
> People talk about this but I have to say - over all these years, we
> have not had to do a lot of fighting with the insurance companies.
> There have been times when we had to deal with them, but they were few
> and far between and the dealings were relatively short. I don't
> really get this whole topic of bickering with them. Maybe other
> people had different experiences from what we had?
I'm sure we have all heard terrible stories. I myself have not had much
strife with them either. Partly I think because I knew what to expect or
didn't feel like fighting (my Dutch medical expenses were paid back to me
- after deductible - using the exchange rate on the day they paid me, not
the day I paid the Dutch hospital, which was bad for me, well, maybe I
lost $100-200). I had to submit multiple versions of the claim, because
after my leg had broken the insurance company apparently thought I should
have walked to the ER, rather than use an ambulance.
>> The problem with medical care is that for some portion you could go
>> and haggle/google/negotiate for the best doctor-price point. For
>> others you will take the emergency care and worry about paying later.
>> That's where you can now run into problems, and hopefully with
>> Obamacare that will be less of a problem.
>
> Hopefully? Any reason to believe that anything will be different - or
> dare I say... better? Sorry Han - I am being snide here. I just
> cannot bring myself to believe that anything is going to get better
> under any government program. But - I am the quintessential pessamist
> in matters like this.
Right now the insurance company tends to fight claims, like they did with
me a bit. If there is more uniformity in how and what is being charged
for medical care, the charging should get more equitable, I think.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> may be used in a political TV or radio ad
ABC News showed us that this evening, on national TV, when Clint was
mouthing "fuck off" in the news clip on his "performance" last evening!
Now, I don't care what he says or when, but I thought it was a little
"off" as an "ad" for family values Republicans ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> The courts have ruled that politicians have a constitutional right to
> lie.
Is that serious? What a relief!
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
>
> "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>> therm?
>>
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>>
>> --
>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>
> Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
> depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those
> who are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue
> with this mess.
> =======================================================================
> ========= There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care
> and those that believe that someone else would do a better job of it.
> I vote, but not necessarily because there is someone I like. If I
> dislike both, I vote for the one that will do the least damage. No
> matter who is running, there is always one that has qualities that you
> like more than the other guy. It would be hard to do worse that Obama.
> I vote because I do care.
My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is
finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins.
Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a
better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep
feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
======================================================================
Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:32:42 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to others to
>decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
>How is voting for the person you wish to win a "don't care" attitude?
==============================================================
Since you know that that person is not going to win, you are accepting the
choice of others, those that vote for viable candidates. Like playing a game
of darts. You decide right off that you can't win so you throw your dart 90
degrees from the board. You might as well not play. Results will be the
same.
>If the rest of you play-it-safers and lesser-of-evilers had only voted
>for Perot in '92, we wouldn't have any of the messes we do today.
>You had your chance and blew it.
================================================================
I did. He blew it. You can continue to not vote for as long as you want. It
won't help. You need a viable candidate first.
Han wrote:
>
> Obamacare is (supposed to) take away most of the back and forth
> bickering between you, doctor and insurance company regarding
> payments.
People talk about this but I have to say - over all these years, we have not
had to do a lot of fighting with the insurance companies. There have been
times when we had to deal with them, but they were few and far between and
the dealings were relatively short. I don't really get this whole topic of
bickering with them. Maybe other people had different experiences from what
we had?
>
> The problem with medical care is that for some portion you could go
> and haggle/google/negotiate for the best doctor-price point. For
> others you will take the emergency care and worry about paying later.
> That's where you can now run into problems, and hopefully with
> Obamacare that will be less of a problem.
Hopefully? Any reason to believe that anything will be different - or dare
I say... better? Sorry Han - I am being snide here. I just cannot bring
myself to believe that anything is going to get better under any government
program. But - I am the quintessential pessamist in matters like this.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:21:19 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Han" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is
>finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins.
>Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a
>better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep
>feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
>======================================================================
>Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
At all. +1
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
Just Wondering wrote:
> On 8/30/2012 6:38 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will
>> have a better approach to battling the deficit.
>
> How is spending TRILLIONS more than the government brings in a good
> approach to battling a deficit???
Well... ummmmm... because...
(or something like that)
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> I chose to live here (http://radburn.org), knowing there are
> restrictions. End of story.
Yup - those are the decisions we are entitled to make. I'm with you on the
privledge to make that decision Han.
> There are other ways to show my first
> amendment rights that don't pollute my environment.
Pollute? A bit of an extreme statement, don't ya think? (although - I
hate political signs in yards myself...)
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>
>
>
>If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
>test!
>
>If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
>If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
>everyone.
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
>If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
>situation.
>A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
>Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
>
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
>A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
>
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it,
>or may choose a job that provides it.
>A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.>
>If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good
>laugh.
>
>A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
>
An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>Well, I forwarded it.
>
On 31 Aug 2012 13:05:06 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:21:19 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Han" wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]... My prediction: The
>>>economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is finally clearing
>>>a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins. Obama will do a
>>>better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a better
>>>approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep feeding
>>>the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
>>>======================================================================
>>>Obviously, you haven't been paying attention.
>>
>> At all. +1
>
>We'll when Obama after Obama gives his victory speech. Or we'll suffer
>RomneyRyanLying for 4 years.
Either case will cause suffering. <sigh> I see another few ripples
like another housing crash and more problems as Obamacare kick in and
people see how expensive (triple, quadruple?) it turns out. He hasn't
controlled the most important things in the healthcare costs: doctors,
insurance, and hospital expenses. (They've controlled insurance as
"well" as they did pharmaceutical costs, by selling their souls to the
devils in that line. Crom save us from our "benefactors".)
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:54:57 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 3:08 AM, Zz Yzx wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
>>> test!
>>>
>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>
>Democrat huh?
Gotta be. "_without_ regard to lack of intelligence" gave it away.
The next day, that person will go back to work flipping burgers.
--
Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
Leon wrote:
>
> For the most part doctors rely on the being on the list of doctors
> that accept a specific type/brand of insurance. Insurance companies
> typically point the patient to a group of doctors and then the patient
> picks from that group. Those doctors agree to take a significantly
> less amount for payment. If every one could pay what insurance pays
> for out health care there would be no need for insurance except in
> extreme cases. The fact that insurance pays for all medical care these
> days
> is the problem.
Agreed. The negotiated rates are good for the insurance company, but who in
the hell can afford that stuff out of pocket?
>
> The "plan" doctors typically charge the patient $30~$40 per visit.
> Doctors accepting insurance have to charge higher prices to employ
> staff
Holy Shit Leon! And that's in Houston? Christ - we're up here in cental NY
where nobody wants to live and we pay twice to three times that - out of
pocket! When we had insurance, the fee was about the same, which is what
really pisses me off! Now - it you are talking about insurance co-pay, that
is a different story. That rate would not be too bad.
>
> Drugs, I was on medication for cholesterol, Vytorin and high blood
> pressure, Toporal. With insurance the name brand medication averaged
> $3 per day when buying a 90 day supply. I switched to generic
> Simestatin
Simvistatin? Same thing I'm on. Much cheaper than the name brand, and the
blood tests prove it works.
> and Atenenol, mainly because one of the the name brands was no longer
> available, and my 90 day drug cost went from $270 to $11. And these
> 12 cents a day medications are working much better than the name
> branded stuff.
Shit Dude - $11 for 90 days??? At Wal Mart I pay twice that for a 30 day
supply. Whatever you do - don't be caught complaining about the cost of
living in Houston...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Han wrote:
>
> That's what I mean, Mike. In oher parts of town the yard signs
> proliferate like mad rabbits in early spring. People even put them in
> the public right of way along the roads.
As much as I too hate that - I'm not sure it is illegal to place things in
the public right of way, as long as the landowner is on board with it. I
thing that the landowner retains his/her rights even under a right of way.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 30 Aug 2012 15:16:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>>>
>>>*****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>>>our.......elected officials."******
>>>
>>>With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>>>longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in
>>>office.
>>
>> Is that a question? ;) Bbbut, "It's all Bush's Fault!" Just ask 'em.
>> Lord Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. It's utterly amazing.
>
>Bush, but the last 2 Congresses share the blame. Mainly because the
>party of no is only interested in trying to make Obama a 1-term
>president. Their obstructionism alone should condemn them.
<sigh> You read far too many liberal papers, Han. I don't consider it
to be anything close to obstructionism when it slows the MASSIVE waste
flow of pork money by the CONgresscritters on a daily basis.
>>>If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
>>>do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>
>That is ostrich-policy - sticking your head in the sand and pretending it
>isn't happening.
I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2 choices.
Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul" on the
line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather have him
there than either of the other two idiots.
(P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 18:54:12 -0400, Keith Nuttle <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>
>>
>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>> November ballot, please.
>>
>> --
>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>
>Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
>depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
>are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
>mess.
Correct. Nothing would be better than what we have.
On 31 Aug 2012 12:54:17 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:51:30 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 4:34 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2
>>>>> choices. Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron
>>>>> Paul" on the line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly
>>>>> rather have him there than either of the other two idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider
>>>>> my GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not wasting your vote exactly, but knowing that you're tilting at
>>>> windmills, any vote for someone other than Romney or Obama infers
>>>> that you'd rather have whoever is ahead on election day over his
>>>> challenger. BTW, I prefer Ron Paul myself on his domestic policies.
>>>> But domestic policy is set more by Congress than by the President.
>>>> I fell of the Ron Paul wagon when he started explaining his position
>>>> on foreign relations, which I thought was scary.
>>>
>>>I don't think I ever liked him on an overall basis, but was somehow
>>>tricked into reading his book. Among the first bunch of chapters
>>>there were a few that I could understand, some even sympathize, but
>>>then he went totally overboard. He is a naive utopist, plus an
>>>isolationist. Sticking your head into the sand won't make the world a
>>>happier place.
>>
>> You've just described Obama.
>
>LOL
>Paul frightens me much more than Obama.
You're an idiot. Ryan has a plan to climb out of the hole. Obama insists
it's not deep enough.
>All politicians stretch the
>truth and plain lie. That's why we ALL need to push our
>congresscritters more. And make sure all laws that concern us apply to
>politicans everywhere as well, and/or vice versa.
You're really good at red herrings and strawmen.
On 8/29/2012 11:49 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>
>
>
> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great
> test!
>
> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>
> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
> everyone.
>
> If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
> If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
>
> If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
> situation.
> A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
>
> If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
> Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
>
> If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
> A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
>
> If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it,
> or may choose a job that provides it.
> A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
>
> If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good
> laugh.
>
> A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
>
> Well, I forwarded it.
>
>
Will I am a Republican but did not forward it this time around.
On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:49:50 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Straight forward country thinking...by Jeff Foxworthy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a
>>> great test!
>>>
>>> If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
>>> If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>>
>>> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
>>> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
>>> everyone.
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>>
>>> If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
>>> If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>>
>>> If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his
>>> situation.
>>> A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.
>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>>
>>> If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
>>> Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.
>>>
>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>> If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
>>> A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion
>>> silenced.
>>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>> If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping
>>> for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
>>> A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.
>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.>
>>> If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a
>>> good laugh.
>>>
>>> A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".
>>>
>>
>> An Independent voter makes up his/her own mind based on the facts as
>> he/she understands them without regard to party affiliation,
>> bipartisan bickering, or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and
>> integrity of our current or prospective elected officials.
>>
>>> Well, I forwarded it.
>
> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>
*****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
our.......elected officials."******
With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in office.
If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>
>
> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
> November ballot, please.
>
> --
> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>
Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
mess.
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>
>
> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
> November ballot, please.
>
> --
> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>
Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
mess.
================================================================================
There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care and those that
believe that someone else would do a better job of it. I vote, but not
necessarily because there is someone I like. If I dislike both, I vote for
the one that will do the least damage. No matter who is running, there is
always one that has qualities that you like more than the other guy. It
would be hard to do worse that Obama. I vote because I do care.
On 8/30/2012 5:37 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Larry Jaques" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 30 Aug 2012 15:16:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 7:32 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Zz Yzx <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>> Perhaps I am an independent after all <BIG grin>.
>>>>
>>>> *****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>>>> our.......elected officials."******
>>>>
>>>> With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>>>> longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in
>>>> office.
>>>
>>> Is that a question? ;) Bbbut, "It's all Bush's Fault!" Just ask 'em.
>>> Lord Obama can do no wrong in their eyes. It's utterly amazing.
>>
>> Bush, but the last 2 Congresses share the blame. Mainly because the
>> party of no is only interested in trying to make Obama a 1-term
>> president. Their obstructionism alone should condemn them.
>
> <sigh> You read far too many liberal papers, Han. I don't consider it
> to be anything close to obstructionism when it slows the MASSIVE waste
> flow of pork money by the CONgresscritters on a daily basis.
>
>
>>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
>>>> do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>>
>>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>>> November ballot, please.
>>
>> That is ostrich-policy - sticking your head in the sand and pretending it
>> isn't happening.
>
> I'll be writing-in this year. I can't stomach either of the 2 choices.
> Since Ross Perot isn't available, I'll be writing "Ron Paul" on the
> line. He probably won't win, either, but I'd truly rather have him
> there than either of the other two idiots.
>
> (P.S: If anyone wants to say I'm wasting my vote, please consider my
> GFY shouted back to you in advance, with extreme prejudice.)
> ==================================================================
> No need to say it. You already know it.
>
I thought about starting a national campaign for None of the Above.
On 31 Aug 2012 00:47:16 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 30 Aug 2012 15:19:02 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>Rules say I can't put signs in my yard.
>>
>> Why?
>
>That's the rule in our community.
That "rule" has no teeth.
>No signs in the yard. Bumperstickers
>are OK. Other parts of town get really littered with election stuff. I am
>happy here!
As long as it's your property (not the city right-of-way), there is nothing
they can do to stop you. I suppose you haven't heard of the First Amendment.
Yes, it covers *precisely* this situation.
Mike Marlow wrote:
> If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
> If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
> everyone.
>
I heard about a woman who was a vegetarian, but she did eat eggs because she
also supported a woman's right to choose.
I don't know her political affiliation.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:32:42 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:58:49 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>>On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what do
>>>> you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>>> November ballot, please.
>>
>>Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
>>depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those who
>>are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue with this
>>mess.
>>================================================================================
>>There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care and those that
>>believe that someone else would do a better job of it. I vote, but not
>>necessarily because there is someone I like. If I dislike both, I vote for
>>the one that will do the least damage.
>
>Voting for the lesser of two evils is NOT the way we Americans are
>supposed to be running elections, CW. It keeps putting the same old
>-corrupt- assholes in charge of the country, continuing their reign of
>terror, abuse, and waste. Our CONgresscritters think they're _gods_,
>fer chrissake!
>
>
>>No matter who is running, there is
>>always one that has qualities that you like more than the other guy. It
>>would be hard to do worse that Obama. I vote because I do care.
>
>As do I.
>==================================================================================
>So, since you don't like what is offered, you will leave it up to others to
>decide for you. Sounds like "don't care" to me.
Some just can't stand making a decision. They may make the wrong one so
simply choose an option that isn't an option at all. They'll never have to
blame themselves for making a mistake. Other simply refuse to admit they made
a mistake and will stick with it to the end. ...and that's where we are.
On Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:01:53 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 8/30/2012 6:38 PM, Han wrote:
>
>> Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will
>> have a better approach to battling the deficit.
>
>How is spending TRILLIONS more than the government brings in a good
>approach to battling a deficit???
Debt is bad for those with money. It's good for those the lifetime welfare
recipients. Think of it as trickle-up-poverty.
On 31 Aug 2012 00:38:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>>
>>
>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>>> therm?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>>> November ballot, please.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>>
>> Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the obama
>> depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative. Those
>> who are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to continue
>> with this mess.
>> =======================================================================
>> ========= There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't care
>> and those that believe that someone else would do a better job of it.
>> I vote, but not necessarily because there is someone I like. If I
>> dislike both, I vote for the one that will do the least damage. No
>> matter who is running, there is always one that has qualities that you
>> like more than the other guy. It would be hard to do worse that Obama.
>> I vote because I do care.
>
>My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess is
>finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who wins.
>Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he will have a
>better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course we keep
>feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle class.
The economy would have already taken off if Obama didn't insist on keeping his
boot on the necks of small businesses. Every time it tries, he comes up with
more reasons for them to sit on their hands.
On 30 Aug 2012 15:13:56 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in news:k1nqua$ktv$1
>@speranza.aioe.org:
>
>> *****"or the lack of leadership, intelligence, and integrity of
>> our.......elected officials."******
>
>I agree that Obama could have been more agressive personally in pushing
>his agenda. Reid and Pelosi are really only soso leaders. Although they
>did get the ACA through!!!
Jesus Christ, Han. Didn't you hear what Pelosi said about the bill?
"We need to pass it to know what's in it." This is LEADERSHIP?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To
Ditto Reid's idiocies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmGO_bTgIf4
Shades of Keith Olberman, eh? <g>
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=harry+reid+scandal
Youtube comes up with 137 videos.
Do you really have -any- faith whatsoever in either of those two
liemongers?
>> With people think like this is it any wonder we are in one of the
>> longest depressions since the 1930 with the social democrats in office.
>
>Well, Congress has to make the laws, and they haven't been very good at
>it, in multiple respects. Whether that is the fault of the party of no,
>or the fault of a lack of leadership, I don't know. Perhaps both have
>failed?
CONgress has failed, bitterly and in total corruption, and that goes
for both sides of the aisle.
>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors what
>> do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for therm?
>
>I was very disappointed at the lies that Ryan promulgated yesterday
>(according to the reports, I hate the guy, so I didn't listen to him).
><http://tinyurl.com/cjwbq9c>
><http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/in-ryan-critique-of-obama-
>omissions-help-make-the-case/?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto>
I'm sure the DNC and/or the NYT could give nice, fair critiques of RNC
functions. Uh, huh.
--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807
Too bad -none- of the current CONgresscritters are willing to do that. -LJ
On 31 Aug 2012 13:03:38 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 31 Aug 2012 00:38:40 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"CW" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>
>>>> On 8/30/2012 10:27 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:47:59 -0400, Keith Nuttle
>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> If you don't evaluate a person for office based on these factors
>>>>>> what do you evaluate them on, the money they pay you to vote for
>>>>>> therm?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like a "None of the Above" checkbox on the President line on my
>>>>> November ballot, please.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Stay centered by accepting whatever you are doing.
>>>>> This is the ultimate. -- Chuang-tzu
>>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately "None of the Above" will be a vote to continue the
>>>> obama depression, so you have got to vote for the only alternative.
>>>> Those who are unhappy with obama's mess and don't vote, vote to
>>>> continue with this mess.
>>>> =====================================================================
>>>> == ========= There are two kinds that don't vote. Those who don't
>>>> care and those that believe that someone else would do a better job
>>>> of it. I vote, but not necessarily because there is someone I like.
>>>> If I dislike both, I vote for the one that will do the least damage.
>>>> No matter who is running, there is always one that has qualities
>>>> that you like more than the other guy. It would be hard to do worse
>>>> that Obama. I vote because I do care.
>>>
>>>My prediction: The economy is going to perk up soon (the housing mess
>>>is finally clearing a bit). Therefore, it doesn't matter much who
>>>wins. Obama will do a better job than liars Romney/Ryan, because he
>>>will have a better approach to battling the deficit. Unless of course
>>>we keep feeding the defense conspiracy, and forget about the middle
>>>class.
>>
>> The economy would have already taken off if Obama didn't insist on
>> keeping his boot on the necks of small businesses. Every time it
>> tries, he comes up with more reasons for them to sit on their hands.
>
>And here I hear that Obama has instituted tax breaks etc etc for small
>businesses. Whom to believe? :)
Giggle. Of course you'll believe the Liar in Chief. No surprise. I'll
believe the economy...
>Regulations are indeed what kills time and diverts energy from the goal.
...it's dead, Jim.
>Which is a very large part of my decision to retire when I did. I wish
>that there was a more simple way to say "behave properly, or else". This
>refers to (example) the interminable repeats of tests and certifications
>that you behave ethically in human research. With slight alterations in
>the rules and forms, so you really, really have to read the bureaucratese
>before you answer. Of course these types of things have really increased
>(unproductive) employment.
Yet you want thousands of pages more of this stuff every year. <boggle>
>More secretaries, rule makers, test readers,
>etc. But what is the alternative?
Strangle the beast. Cut bureaucrat's budget 50% (for a start).
>We're supposed to have a presumption
>of innocence
Nonsense. Only in a court of law does the presumption of innocence have any
bearing.
>before punishing the guy who did whatever he is accused of,
>so we need evidence.
The economy.
>Which in reality (Seriously!) means it isn't as bad
>to have done some wrong, as it is to have fudged the data, or failed to
>document what you did or somethign along those lines.
AGW.
>No matter that did
>spill this or that and cleaned it up properly. You need the
>documentation.
Strawman.