 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / February 2008{OT:} What Democrats should do with FISA
Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and tap all the Bush family phone. After all the entire family seems to have a large number of Islamic terrorist friends. In fact, Shrub holds hands with a few every time he is in their company. Daddy Bush is friends with the bin Laden family. Neil Bush lives part time in South America. In fact, the entire Bush administration past and present needs to have all phone calls and internet traffic recorded, and all emails and usps mail opened and copied. We owe it to ourselves to ferret out the collaborators in our midst. > Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and > restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > We owe it to ourselves to ferret out the collaborators in our midst. So, you would rather Congress go after sports figures on steroids than ragheads on bombs? Great. Are you aware that Hillary has said she will force you to buy health insurance, and if she finds out you do not have it she will garnish your wages AND give you a fine for not participating voluntarily? Whom is the bigger danger to you, one that will never listen to you unless you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your bank account? >> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So, you would rather Congress go after sports figures on steroids than > ragheads on bombs? Great. George H.W. Bush, the former president, socializes in Kennebunkport with people from a country which is a state sponsor of terrorism. According to the new rules, George H.W. Bush's phonecalls with those people may (and probably should) be monitored. >>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the new rules, George H.W. Bush's phonecalls with those people may (and > probably should) be monitored. Okay. Do you care that Bush Daddy is monitored, or do you care that YOU are monitored? I don't care that you or he are monitored, I only care that _I_ am monitored. I avoid being monitored by not calling Pakistan. There are 300,000,000 Americans. This is far too many to monitor, unless they focus on a very few -- probably numbering in the tens. I much prefer these be monitored, than having Her Thankleness tap my checking account because I do not have health insurance. And, I prefer a few be monitored instead of counting the HGH shots that Clements got. >>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > because I do not have health insurance. And, I prefer a few be monitored > instead of counting the HGH shots that Clements got. All I care about is that the constitution is not stepped on. As you know (but are hoping nobody will mention), the law has already been broken in the name of "patriotism and safety". We can't let that continue. You cannot amend the Constitution with persistent evasion. -Mario Cuomo >>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>>>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > (but are hoping nobody will mention), the law has already been broken in > the name of "patriotism and safety". We can't let that continue. FISA is not unconstitutional. Yes, FISA has been broken and that's a bad thing. But banks have been robbed and that's a bad thing. Are you suggesting we scrap the bank-robbery laws because they have been broken already? That's absurd. You are suggesting we scrap FISA because it was broken. Indeed, you are applauding the end of FISA, will you cheer just as enthusiastically when bank-robber laws are scrapped? It is notable that you do not protest Hillary's plan to go into your checkbook and grab your money. Where do you draw the line on what the government can do to you? >>>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>>>>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Where do you draw the line on what the government can do to you? First of all, you will immediately eject your health plan comments and questions from this discussion, since they are not related to electronical surveillance. I will not address the issue here, so you're only adding clutter. Capisce? >>>>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>>>>>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Capisce? Well, you're not addressing electronic surveillance either ... As always, you dial in on the sh.t that does not matter, and completely miss the big picture. The big picture is that you do not want the government to spy in on your phone calls, but seem perfectly okay with the government spying on your bank account. The odds favor they not listen in to your measly discussions -- and certainly not mine -- but they will check to see if you have health care, then garnish your wages and issue a fine if you do not have health care. The issue is not the health care or FISA, it's that government is watching you. Capisce. >>>>>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power and >>>>>>>> restore the constitution, they can follow the letter of the law and [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Capisce. That plan will never get off the ground. It's impossible, unless it's dirt cheap, which it cannot be. >>>>>>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power >>>>>>>>> and [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > That plan will never get off the ground. It's impossible, unless it's dirt > cheap, which it cannot be. Your ability to miss the big picture is amazing. I'll type slow, and use the big letters for you ... Ready? THE BIG PICTURE IS THAT HILLARY SAID SHE WILL LOOK TO SEE IF YOU CAN AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE, THEN LOOK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE IT, THEN FINE YOU IF YOU DON'T AND TAKE THE MONEY FROM YOU WITHOUT ASKING. Which government program is more intrusive, the one where Hillary will take your money and force you into health coverage, or the one where they might listen in on your phone calls to your raghead a.shole buddies that are plotting to land another jet into the side of a tall building? Of these two intrusions, which one is best for the rest of American society? Hillary has already said that she will do this. Congress might block her, but if Congress continues to be dominated by Dimocrats, odds favor them signing off on the plan. >>>>>>>>>> Here is a very good plan. When the Democrats get back in power >>>>>>>>>> and [quoted text clipped - 99 lines] > but if Congress continues to be dominated by Dimocrats, odds favor them > signing off on the plan. It won't fly. And, about the FISA bill: You need to get a better source of information. You've been played, as always, by whatever your current sources are. Find one which requires sitting quietly and listening or reading for more than 1/2 hour. And, wipe the spit off your screen. > THE BIG PICTURE IS THAT HILLARY SAID SHE WILL LOOK TO SEE IF YOU CAN AFFORD > HEALTH INSURANCE, THEN LOOK TO SEE IF YOU HAVE IT, THEN FINE YOU IF YOU > DON'T AND TAKE THE MONEY FROM YOU WITHOUT ASKING. No, Hillary said she's gonna do Universal Health Care. Like most other industrialized Nations. Universal Health Care will restore the ability of American manufacturers to compete in world markets. Or don't you care about that. Oh, you probably don't care about that, your're a self serving Republican. > Which government program is more intrusive, the one where Hillary will take > your money and force you into health coverage, The Govt already takes my money and spends it on sh.t I don't want. Frankly, I'd rather they spent it on Health Care. > or the one where they might > listen in on your phone calls to your raghead a.shole buddies that are > plotting to land another jet into the side of a tall building? Of these two > intrusions, which one is best for the rest of American society? Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you see the Constitution as a bunch of suggestions regarding how our Govt should work? > Hillary... What, you're still worried about Hillary? Don't think Obama's cult of personality will win the nomination? In an Obama / McCain race how long before McCain makes Obama cry? >> Which government program is more intrusive, the one where Hillary will take >> your money and force you into health coverage, > >The Govt already takes my money and spends it on sh.t I don't want. >Frankly, I'd rather they spent it on Health Care. You want the 'government' to control your health care?  SignatureScott in Florida Scott in Florida wrote: > You want the 'government' to control your health care? If the government had controlled your health care, your brain wouldn't be half-eaten by syphilis, and you'd still be on your first liver. In article <a46826c5-4a58-498e-85f2-aaae9d8b3920@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > If the government had controlled your health care, your brain wouldn't > be half-eaten by syphilis, and you'd still be on your first liver. What a moron you are. That goes for the other members of your merry band of A-hole buddies. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > In article > <a46826c5-4a58-498e-85f2-aaae9d8b3920@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What a moron you are. That goes for the other members of your merry > band of A-hole buddies. What a cute personal attack. You must be proud. > In article > <a46826c5-4a58-498e-85f2-aaae9d8b3...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hillary Clinton You guys are fixated on butt hole, but you are a rightwingnut. >Scott in Florida wrote: > >> You want the 'government' to control your health care? > >If the government had controlled your health care, your brain wouldn't >be half-eaten by syphilis, and you'd still be on your first liver. You know when you have flushed a liberal.... I flushed you....... SignatureScott in Florida > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:10:00 -0800 (PST), ACAR > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Scott in Florida Would you like to pay the same discounted price for prescription drugs everyone else in the world pays? Spain, UK, Germany, France, China, Scandavavian countries, Eastern European, the list is long and the U.S. is not included. >> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:10:00 -0800 (PST), ACAR >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Scandavavian countries, Eastern European, the list is long and the >U.S. is not included. If we did...... There would be no new drugs. Again America pulls the world along.... SignatureScott in Florida > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:33:26 -0800 (PST), "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Try to stay focused, this is an easy yes/no question. Would you like to pay the same price for prescription drugs as the rest of the world? > Would you like to pay the same discounted price for prescription drugs > everyone else in the world pays? Spain, UK, Germany, France, China, > Scandavavian countries, Eastern European, the list is long and the > U.S. is not included. Which companies developed those drugs? How many of them are in those countries which have socialized medicine or crippling limitations on industry? On Feb 16, 2:24 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,11:33:26 AM, wrote: > > Would you like to pay the same discounted price for prescription drugs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > countries which have socialized medicine or crippling limitations on > industry? Europe, UK, Canada, US. The drugs are manufactured all over the world. One or two pharma companies are US companies, most are owned by UK or European companies. THe few pharma companies (Merck) will be driven out of business when they cannot compete with the cheap R&D teams in CHina. If you are thinking China can't do this, they can. We trainied generations of Indians and Chinese in drug R&D and IT. There is an erroneous belief that all drugs are discovered in the U.S. Not so now and especially in the near future. What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now moving the R&D groups to China. The IT departments are mostly gone. I work in the industry. All that will be left soon in the U.S. will be the back offices, sales and advertising. These are things Rush Lintball, Sean Vanity. Billow Rielly, and all the other rightwingnut pundits DON'T, know so they can't tell you. You have to get this info on your own. On Feb 16, 2:24 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,11:33:26 AM, wrote: > > Would you like to pay the same discounted price for prescription drugs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > countries which have socialized medicine or crippling limitations on > industry? Europe, UK, Canada, US. The drugs are manufactured all over the world. One or two pharma companies are US companies, most are owned by UK or European companies. THe few pharma companies (Merck) will be driven out of business when they cannot compete with the cheap R&D teams in CHina. If you are thinking China can't do this, they can. We trainied generations of Indians and Chinese in drug R&D and IT. There is an erroneous belief that all drugs are discovered in the U.S. Not so now and especially in the near future. What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now moving the R&D groups to China. The IT departments are mostly gone. I work in the industry. All that will be left soon in the U.S. will be the back offices, sales and advertising. These are things Rush Lintball, Sean Vanity. Billow Rielly, and all the other rightwingnut pundits DON'T, know so they can't tell you. You have to get this info on your own. ========== Oh yeah? Prove it. JUST KIDDING! :-) > What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now moving > the R&D groups to China. Why do you suppose this is the case? >> What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now moving >> the R&D groups to China. > > Why do you suppose this is the case? Because liberals hate George Bush. > > > What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now > > > moving the R&D groups to China. > > > > Why do you suppose this is the case? > > Because liberals hate George Bush. This answer makes as much sense as anything else you post. Have you had your Chinese-made meds today? >> > > What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now >> > > moving the R&D groups to China. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This answer makes as much sense as anything else you post. Have you > had your Chinese-made meds today? It's the answer Sot sometimes gets fixated on for weeks at a time, the root cause of all the country's problems. So, I figured if it's good enough for Sot, it's good enough for you. On Feb 16, 2:54 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,2:47:10 PM, wrote: > > What you don't know is just about all Pharma companies are now moving > > the R&D groups to China. > > Why do you suppose this is the case? The employee costs are much cheaper off-shore. Even when Indians and Chinese move back to their countries to work for the company doing the outsourced work in their home country and take a pay cut they still have a large salary. Plus, my soapbox rant, they have national healthcare so companies don't have that expense. My Indian co-workers tell me that if I moved to India and made just 1/3 of my salary I could buy a house and hire a cook and house maid. It's been a rollercoaster ride the past 4 years at work. Right now my group is under scrutiny. My objectives for 2008 are to package and outsource all operations & service aspects of my job. I could ignore the objectives thinking I'll keep my job but I get raises and a bonus based my performance carrying out those objectives. If I'm left with too few "analyst/management" jobs/tasks then I'm gone. Managers have said in meetings that if the Democrats win there will be more layoffs and outsourcing. When you work for an American company, multiple your salary by 2.5 and that's the real cost to your employer to keep you onboard. > On Feb 16, 2:54 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > When you work for an American company, multiple your salary by 2.5 and > that's the real cost to your employer to keep you onboard. All of what you describe can be almost directly attributed to high corporate taxes, unions, and mandatory healthcare. I'm not saying these things should be abolished but I am saying if socialized medicine is forced upon us you can bet your job more of what you describe will be done to keep the profit margin acceptable to the shareholder. Signature"If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure." ~ President Bill Clinton On Feb 16, 6:47 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,5:59:32 PM, wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2:54 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Healthcare isn't mandatory. Corporations offer it for many reasons but it is not mandatory. Even if you consider unions, healthcare is part of the bargaining process. BTW, I don't have figures but unions jobs are a very low percentage of American jobs. As far as corporate taxes, if American corporations would reinvest profits into the infrastucture instead of looking for mergers to generate profits, and especially paying top managers bonuses and golden parachutes, things might be better here. I can tell you I don't have a soundbite to knock your argument over. But I will surmise the problems are not easily solved by cutting taxes to corporations or disbanding unions. If it were that simple it would already have been done. My experience is if corporations want to do something, they will do it. You know that statement, if America is so bad why does everyone want to come here? I ask, if American business taxes and workers are so bad why do foreign investors and companies want to own Ameircan businesses? > You know that statement, if America is so bad why does everyone want > to come here? I ask, if American business taxes and workers are so > bad why do foreign investors and companies want to own Ameircan > businesses? Relative to foreign government business taxes ours are much less. Maybe that's why foreign investors want to own American businesses. It is precisely that road we don't want to go down which socialized healthcare will require. > Would you like to pay the same discounted price for prescription drugs > everyone else in the world pays? Spain, UK, Germany, France, China, > Scandavavian countries, Eastern European, the list is long and the > U.S. is not included. Discounted? Where do you think the money comes from to get that "discount"? > On 2008-02-16 08:33:26 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Discounted? Where do you think the money comes from to get that "discount"? The U.S. consumer. >> On 2008-02-16 08:33:26 -0800, "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" >> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> said: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The U.S. consumer. I see. > Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers > your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you > see the Constitution as a bunch of suggestions regarding how our Govt > should work? Oh, the irony! Where in the Constitution does it say socialized health care can be forced upon the people? Where does it say social services are to be provided unless you think "provide for the general welfare" means that? Signature"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress today? It wouldnt even get out of committee." ~ F. Lee Bailey >> Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers >> your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are to be provided unless you think "provide for the general welfare" > means that? What do YOU think should be done to solve the health care problem? Matter of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you think there is a problem? > What do YOU think should be done to solve the health care problem? Matter > of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you think there is a > problem? Here we go again... ;-) >> What do YOU think should be done to solve the health care problem? Matter >> of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you think there is a >> problem? > >Here we go again... ;-) Circle Jerk Alert!!!!!!!!!!!! ROFLMAO SignatureScott in Florida > > > Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it > > > empowers your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Matter of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you > think there is a problem? I have already answered that in the past but here I go again... The fastest way to lower medical costs is to deny anything but the basic care to anyone who is not a citizen or a legal green card carrier. The only exception would be those who are prepared to pay for the costs of the services. > I have already answered that in the past but here I go again... > > The fastest way to lower medical costs is to deny anything but the > basic care to anyone who is not a citizen or a legal green card > carrier. The only exception would be those who are prepared to pay for > the costs of the services. Too bad this is, ironically, illegal to do in Kalifornia. You've got to be amazed at the stupidity of our legislators: They make this illegal, then bitch about hospital closures due to financial strain. >> > > Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it >> > > empowers your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > carrier. The only exception would be those who are prepared to pay for > the costs of the services. OK. That's done. How much would that lower the cost of health insurance? Provide sources for your guesses. > > > What do YOU think should be done to solve the health care problem? > > > Matter of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > How much would that lower the cost of health insurance? Provide > sources for your guesses. Let's see it done first. It will also lower the crime rate tremendously. The cost savings to the country would be incredible. >> > > What do YOU think should be done to solve the health care problem? >> > > Matter of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Let's see it done first. It will also lower the crime rate > tremendously. The cost savings to the country would be incredible. I still see no source for the cost savings you're claiming. Obviously, there would be some, an amount greater than zero. But, you said "incredible". Show me sources. >>> Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers >>> your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >of fact, how do you define the health care problem? Do you think there is a >problem? Do you have a health care problem? I sure don't..... SignatureScott in Florida > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:49:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > - Show quoted text - That's because you have government healthcare. On Feb 16, 8:36 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers > > your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through > Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee." ~ F. Lee Bailey Don't sign up for it. On Feb 16, 8:36 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Get yourself a copy of the Constitution and tell me where it empowers > > your Govt to spy on you without a court order. Or, like Bush, do you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > are to be provided unless you think "provide for the general welfare" > means that? As do the Supremes. > -- > "Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through > Congress today? It wouldn't even get out of committee." ~ F. Lee Bailey > >>> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >>>news:9e3a57dd-b9d9-47d9-bb6c-fd1f808f5567@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I heard repugnantcans on C-SPAN on the way home pushing lie after lie that without retroactive immunity the telecomms will get sued. So not true. All telecomm companies have automatic immunity IF they collect data with a court order. If the data collection was 5 years ago ot takes place tomorrow AND there is a FISA court order, the telecomm or any other company can collect data without any fear of law suits. Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence against Bush/Cheney. That would be a glorious day for me. On Feb 15, 5:14 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I heard repugnantcans on C-SPAN on the way home pushing lie after lie that without retroactive immunity the telecomms will get sued. So not true. All telecomm companies have automatic immunity IF they collect data with a court order. If the data collection was 5 years ago ot takes place tomorrow AND there is a FISA court order, the telecomm or any other company can collect data without any fear of law suits. Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence against Bush/Cheney. That would be a glorious day for me. ========= That's about the size of it. If everyone involved with getting surveillance underway obeys the law, immunity becomes a non-issue. So, anyone who insists on any other version of immunity must be planning on breaking the law. >That's about the size of it. If everyone involved with getting surveillance >underway obeys the law, immunity becomes a non-issue. So, anyone who insists >on any other version of immunity must be planning on breaking the law. You are truly a stupid SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Learn about what is going on and get back to us. This is about National Security. You idiotic Dims have put the country at risk, playing politics. SignatureScott in Florida > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:33:23 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott in Florida The way you use exclamation points I bet you talk with a lisp and are a big drama queen. >>That's about the size of it. If everyone involved with getting >>surveillance [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You idiotic Dims have put the country at risk, playing politics. Republicans interviewed on the news disagree completely with your claims about this issue. Go get some dependable information, and then don't come back here with it. >I heard repugnantcans on C-SPAN on the way home pushing lie after lie >that without retroactive immunity the telecomms will get sued. So not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >place tomorrow AND there is a FISA court order, the telecomm or any >other company can collect data without any fear of law suits. You dumb sh.t.... The Telecons did it without a court order after 9/11. THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT! Now thanks to you idiotic Dims....the Telecoms won't do it any more. They don't trust the Dims (which are OWNED by trial lawyers). Now you idiots have put us all at risk. >Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice >department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence >against Bush/Cheney. > >That would be a glorious day for me. SignatureScott in Florida >>I heard repugnantcans on C-SPAN on the way home pushing lie after lie >>that without retroactive immunity the telecomms will get sued. So not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Now thanks to you idiotic Dims....the Telecoms won't do it any more. > They don't trust the Dims (which are OWNED by trial lawyers). A Republican senator on tonight's news contradicted what you just said. Shut the f.ck up, OK? You have no idea what you're talking about. >>>I heard repugnantcans on C-SPAN on the way home pushing lie after lie >>>that without retroactive immunity the telecomms will get sued. So not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >A Republican senator on tonight's news contradicted what you just said. Shut >the f.ck up, OK? You have no idea what you're talking about. I won't shut up you stupid basturd!!!!!!!!! Your party put all of us at risk. SignatureScott in Florida > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:55:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "There are three kinds of turds, mustard, custard, and you, you dirty bastard. Run Shirley." Hey snott, the repugnantcan party wants you to shut up. You can't comprehend the issues and are making the party look dumb. On Feb 15, 9:06 pm, Scott in Florida <Mov...@outa.here> wrote: > On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 00:55:06 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > - Show quoted text - "There are three kinds of turds, mustard, custard, and you, you dirty bastard. Run Shirley." Hey snott, the repugnantcan party wants you to shut up. You can't comprehend the issues and are making the party look dumb. ================ Splatt has been listening to the noise machine again. http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0706/tmw-big.jpg > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 16:21:56 -0800 (PST), "edspyhil...@yahoo.com" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Scott in Florida The telecomms won't do it anymore because the Bush junta won't pay them. You live in a very small, compact, paranoid world. You are institutionalized and heavily sedated, aren't you? In article <bef3615c-a6dd-449e-a502-7866af5e5014@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >>>news:9e3a57dd-b9d9-47d9-bb6c-fd1f808f5567@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com... [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > That would be a glorious day for me. The dimmies are worthless and should be........SHALL be REPLACED in the next election. The current dimmmies leadership is the uncontested worst leadership in the history of congress. Signature"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton > In article > <bef3615c-a6dd-449e-a502-7866af5e5...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dream on, spastic colon boy. > Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice > department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence > against Bush/Cheney. Do you really believe Bush and Cheney have colluded with the Saudis to screw the American people? Signature"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed >> Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice >> department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence >> against Bush/Cheney. > > Do you really believe Bush and Cheney have colluded with the Saudis to > screw the American people? http://tinyurl.com/2q4ro8 >>> Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice >>> department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/2q4ro8 "This book is temporarily unavailable try again later". WTF? What's the name of this mysterious book? >>>> Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice >>>> department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "This book is temporarily unavailable try again later". WTF? What's the > name of this mysterious book? Not sure why you can't open the link; it still works for me. Try this: http://tinyurl.com/2yngpo >>>>> Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice >>>>> department flips the telecomm CEOs and they turn state's evidence [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://tinyurl.com/2yngpo The radical left. OK. dbu would define that as everyone except him, Bush, Cheney, and Hush Bimbo. Sot would define it as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Charles & sharx will define it as ***f.ck!?~~~!!!!!!!!!!A-HOLE >> Not sure why you can't open the link; it still works for me. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The radical left. OK. dbu would define that as everyone except him, Bush, > Cheney, and Hush Bimbo. Too true. Funny how he's so liberal, yet in denial about it. > Sot would define it as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's that breathing thing again. > >>>> edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/15/2008,7:21:56 PM, wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It's a self-published book or published by a vanity press. I bet the author self-medicates. On Feb 16, 8:38 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/15/2008,7:21:56 PM, wrote: > > Bushie wants retroactive immunity to cover his butt when the justice [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human > knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed One answer - as long as Iraqi oil flow is controlled by the U.S., Saudi is making much more money. Always follow the money, forget politics. > On Feb 16, 8:38 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Saudi is making much more money. Always follow the money, forget > politics. Is that a "yes" or a "no"? >> On Feb 16, 8:38 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Is that a "yes" or a "no"? If this is where you find the real answers to questions like that, you haven't set foot in a library in WAY too long. But, we already knew that. On Feb 16, 2:26 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,11:23:50 AM, wrote: > > On Feb 16, 8:38 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Is that a "yes" or a "no"? The "Yes" was strongly, it not solidly, implied. > On Feb 16, 2:26 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > The "Yes" was strongly, it not solidly, implied. If you truly believe Bush/Cheney have been in cahoots with the Saudis then why has the Democrat-controlled Congress allowed this supposed act of betrayal and/or spying to continue? Are they truly that incompetent that they can't have them arrested and put to trial? That shouldn't be too hard to prove if what you imply is true. Maybe the real answer is no such thing is happening and you are caught up in conspiracy theories or maybe the entire US government is in the back pockets of the Saudis and the Chinese. Tell me, did Bush/Cheney set up 9/11? On Feb 16, 2:59 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,2:48:34 PM, wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2:26 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - . .> Tell me, did Bush/Cheney set up 9/11? No. Don't be silly. The Bush and the Saudi family have many shared financial interests. Consider that even though just about all the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, there were no consequences to Saudi Arabia. The only planes flying after 9/11 were the planes carrying the bin Ladan family out of the U.S. I think the main reason Shrub attacked Iraq was because Sadam offered a reward to anyone who killed Shrub's daddy, and Shrub wanted to equal or best his daddy. Fairly lame reasons to waste the U.S. treasurery and our military. Mundane in a Shakesperean way. > I think the main reason Shrub attacked Iraq was because Sadam offered > a reward to anyone who killed Shrub's daddy, and Shrub wanted to equal > or best his daddy. Then how did he manage to get so many other countries on board with his plan? How did he manage to fool so many intelligence organizations into believing his claims of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction? It certainly isn't his eloquent speech or good looks. Maybe there really was something to all that, after all why would all these other countries have risked their money, reputation and lives? On Feb 16, 10:46 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,5:43:46 PM, wrote: > > I think the main reason Shrub attacked Iraq was because Sadam offered [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > was something to all that, after all why would all these other > countries have risked their money, reputation and lives? Bush and the Neocons fabricated believable evidence. We had the paperwork that 95% of the weapons were distroyed during the W.H. Bush administration, and Clinton's. Remember what the British were told, "We will fix the intell" or words to that effect. > On Feb 16, 10:46 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > administration, and Clinton's. Remember what the British were told, > "We will fix the intell" or words to that effect. If what you say is true then Bush/Cheney are indeed THE most shrewd, manipulative politicians EVER! Not only did they fool the American people, intelligence organizations, Congress, the world, but even God! All this in the span of one year in power. Saddam Hussein must be a martyr. Are you sure they weren't responsible for 9/11? What about the non-existent plane that hit the Pentagon? How about the missles that were actually used? What about the explosives that were hidden all over the WTC to make sure it fell faster? How about the WTC building that went down before the Twin Towers? Surely Cheney's henchmen lit the fuses and ran like crazy. Signature"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive." ~ Thomas Jefferson On Feb 16, 11:30 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > edspyhil...@yahoo.com, 2/16/2008,11:07:17 PM, wrote: > > On Feb 16, 10:46 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are baiting me now. I need to go practicd guitar. >> I think the main reason Shrub attacked Iraq was because Sadam offered >> a reward to anyone who killed Shrub's daddy, and Shrub wanted to equal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > plan? How did he manage to fool so many intelligence organizations > into believing his claims of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction? By insisting he was right, but refusing to share details about the information. That's the same thing he treats http://www.iaea.org/. The behavior is justified by saying "If we gave you a lot of details, it would jeopardize our sources and methods". You will now disagree with this. >> On Feb 16, 2:26 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > or maybe the entire US government is in the back pockets of the Saudis > and the Chinese. You should read a book called "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert Baer. That will answer most of your questions about the Saudis and the Bush family. You won't read it, though. Why is that? Why would you rather whine for answers in this newsgroup, instead of actually getting the information you want from reliable sources? > Tell me, did Bush/Cheney set up 9/11? No, but they did absolutely nothing to punish the TYPE OF COUNTRY which Bush said SHOULD BE PUNISHED if such a country ever attacked. He repeatedly used the words "state sponsors of terroristm". You heard him use those words. > You should read a book called "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert > Baer. Are you sure that wasn't written by Bill Clinton? On Feb 16, 10:47 pm, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You should read a book called "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert > > Baer. > > Are you sure that wasn't written by Bill Clinton? That would have been "Sleeping with the bitch". >> You should read a book called "Sleeping With The Devil", by Robert >> Baer. > > Are you sure that wasn't written by Bill Clinton? The book condemns at least 4 presidents. But, you won't read it, so why are you asking questions about it? Why won't your wife let you read books? > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your bank > account? I think we need to leave professional sports figures alone. That is their livelyhood. Baseball players, hockey players, football players!!! put their bodies through hell. If the Olympics and the Tour de france want to test for performance enhancing drugs, fine, but leave the pros alone. Seeing any of these guys still playing in ther 30's is inspiring. Look at Garcia, QB for Tampa Bay - he is a monster, still. (We won't talk about the Eagle trading him to protect McNabb's tender ego.) Congress is pissing me off. I have sent nastygram emails to Howard Dean, MoveOn.org and a few other dems telling them to grow a spine. There is a grass roots effort that says don't get frustrated and stop voting, run a real dem against a fake dem, challenge our own party. This refocuses the person in office to get their poop together and rediscover their progressive principles. On Feb 15, 4:45 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote: > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your bank > account? I think we need to leave professional sports figures alone. That is their livelyhood. Baseball players, hockey players, football players!!! put their bodies through hell. If the Olympics and the Tour de france want to test for performance enhancing drugs, fine, but leave the pros alone. Seeing any of these guys still playing in ther 30's is inspiring. Look at Garcia, QB for Tampa Bay - he is a monster, still. (We won't talk about the Eagle trading him to protect McNabb's tender ego.) Congress is pissing me off. I have sent nastygram emails to Howard Dean, MoveOn.org and a few other dems telling them to grow a spine. There is a grass roots effort that says don't get frustrated and stop voting, run a real dem against a fake dem, challenge our own party. This refocuses the person in office to get their poop together and rediscover their progressive principles. On Feb 15, 4:45 pm, "Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote: > <edspyhil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your bank > account? I think we need to leave professional sports figures alone. That is their livelyhood. Baseball players, hockey players, football players!!! put their bodies through hell. If the Olympics and the Tour de france want to test for performance enhancing drugs, fine, but leave the pros alone. Seeing any of these guys still playing in ther 30's is inspiring. Look at Garcia, QB for Tampa Bay - he is a monster, still. (We won't talk about the Eagle trading him to protect McNabb's tender ego.) Congress is pissing me off. I have sent nastygram emails to Howard Dean, MoveOn.org and a few other dems telling them to grow a spine. There is a grass roots effort that says don't get frustrated and stop voting, run a real dem against a fake dem, challenge our own party. This refocuses the person in office to get their poop together and rediscover their progressive principles. <JS> I do not agree, completely. Pro-sports players should be governed by their respective sport. If baseball wants to have juiced players, or turn a blind eye to them, then that is baseball's choice. Football, basketball, and so on are all the same. Players on juice are bad, but more for the player than anybody else. And, bad for the sport, which is why the sport should deal with these guys. In any case, juiced players is not a congressional issue. </JS> <JS> > I do not agree, completely. Pro-sports players should be governed by their > respective sport. If baseball wants to have juiced players, or turn a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any case, juiced players is not a congressional issue. > </JS> Oh, but it's so much more fun to play Sherlock, questioning sports figures about their alleged use of steroids, than to attend to the many problems facing this nation. Thus Congress plays Sherlock. It's none of their damn business in the first place, any more than an investigation of whether NASCAR vehicles are using aviation gas to increase performance. Let the Pro sports association deal with it...or not. > <JS> >> I do not agree, completely. Pro-sports players should be governed by [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > increase performance. > Let the Pro sports association deal with it...or not. Yeah. It's this year's version of the bl.wj.b inquisition. > >"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:lcotj.88$N95.44@trnddc03... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Yeah. It's this year's version of the bl.wj.b inquisition. The bl.wj.b inquisition was a matter of national security also. Not only that it was an executive using his power over an intern to gain favors. You cannot compare the two. One is investigating privately run organizations and the other is investigating public officials who are misusing their powers. Signature"They never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge." ~ Thomas Brackett Reed >> >"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:lcotj.88$N95.44@trnddc03... [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > only that it was an executive using his power over an intern to gain > favors. You cannot compare the two. I cannot? I just did. Now sit down and be quiet, you little toad. > > > Yeah. It's this year's version of the bl.wj.b inquisition. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I cannot? I just did. Now sit down and be quiet, you little toad. I see you are painted into a corner again. > The bl.wj.b inquisition was a matter of national security also. Not > only that it was an executive using his power over an intern to gain > favors. It was also a violation of a federal regulation that Clinton himself signed into law. On Feb 16, 9:03 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >"Jeff Strickland" <cr...@verizon.net> wrote in message > >news:lcotj.88$N95.44@trnddc03... [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are a lunatic fixated on a point of view that most republicans avoid discussing because of embarrassment. Compare Clinton's transgression to all the republican closeted queens and the sheer weight of the rightwing's depravity is stunning. Clinton got a bl.wj.b from a woman. How many republican _males_ have been caught GIVING bl.wj.bs (senators, congressman, religious leaders preaching republican ideals). If I were you I'd moxnix the bl.wj.b argument > On Feb 16, 9:03 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > If I were you I'd moxnix the bl.wj.b argument No, I won't. Anyone found using their position to gain personal favors from anyone, much less subordinates, should be fired immediately. I don't care what their political affiliation is or who they are. The President of the United States has to be held to the highest standards of anyone barring religious leaders. Signature"The people who vote decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." ~ Josef Stalin > I think we need to leave professional sports figures alone. We do - just look at American pro soccer and the WNBA. That is not entirely correct. History shows that for the government to give one dollar to one taxpayer it takes two from another taxpayer. In other word to give on dollar in "free healthcare" to one person they will take a one from you and one from another taxpayer ;) > <edspyhill01@yahoo.com> wrote in message So, you would rather Congress go > after sports figures on steroids than ragheads on bombs? Great. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your bank > account? That doesn't really change my point ... > That is not entirely correct. History shows that for the government to > give one dollar to one taxpayer it takes two from another taxpayer. In [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> unless you place a phone call to Pakistan or the one that will empty your >> bank account? > That is not entirely correct. History shows that for the government to give > one dollar to one taxpayer it takes two from another taxpayer. In other > word to give on dollar in "free healthcare" to one person they will take a > one from you and one from another taxpayer ;) Did you actually believe you were being clever or insightful when you typed that? Was it the beer(s)? > That is not entirely correct. History shows that for the government to give > one dollar to one taxpayer it takes two from another taxpayer. Provide some evidence that each $1 given to one person costs $2 from other people. Why is it $2 and not $1.10 or $50? > In other word to give on dollar in "free healthcare" to one person they will take a > one from you and one from another taxpayer ;) You make it seem as nutty as the government mailing out tax rebate checks while running a budget deficit. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.