"BikeFan" wrote in message
...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Hmm. Attending Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years?


Surely your sig means "Learn more about Joseph Smith?

--
BikeFan

Sorry. I forgot about the secret Masonic handshakes.

Steve

-Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.-

HeyBub wrote:
Ken Lay wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

I don't care whether Obama is a Muslim.

He says he's not a Mohammaden, but Sharia says he is. To a billion
people (more or less) who follow Islamic Law, what Obama says
conflicts with the facts as they know them.

So, then, my point is this: Obama says he's a Christian. To a huge
number of people either he's not a Christian or, if he is, he is
also an apostate. I would think this would be worrisome to someone
who says he cares deeply about what the world thinks.

So who should define what he is? You? Sharia law? Vatican law?

It's difficult. In religious law, the religion determines. One can claim this and that to their heart's content but if
the claim conflicts with religious law, the adherents to the religion will not accept the claim.

They're completely irrelevant. They're fools that have bought the bull****.

Under Catholic doctrine, a civil divorce is not a divorce in the eyes of the Vatican.

Those senile fools are completely irrlevant.

Under Jewish law, a woman cannot divorce her husband.

Who cares ?

Now under Catholic rules, one who abandons the faith can be excommunicated.

And they dont bother to do that with those who rape children.

Under Jewish law, one who adopts another religion is still Jewish.

Jewish law doesnt apply to someone who isnt jewish, stupid.

Under Sharia, a person who strays from the one true path is a target for any of the true believers.

Pig ignorant lie.

(I think they get two extra virgins for dispatching the heretic

Pig ignorant lie.

- not sure whether these virgins are male or female.)

They're goats, stupid.

Have you forgotten what country you live in?

No. But many countries are not as enlightened as we.

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed which country Obummer is currently in.

Leaving aside the 50-odd Muslim-majority countries, you can't hold office in Spain unless you are Catholic;

Irrelevant to Obummer. Even somone as stupid as you
should have noticed that he wants to hold office in america.

you can't even VOTE in Finland unless you are a Lutheran.

Pig ignorant lie.

You may not be a peer in England (or even a member of the Royal Society) unless you harken to the Anglican Communion.

Pig ignorant lie.

Again, religion and religious law play important parts in many countries.

Irrelevant to Obummer. Even somone as stupid as you
should have noticed that he wants to hold office in america.

Or is there now some kind of law (perhaps passed under the Bush
administration) that says Americans have to pick a stupid faith and
stay there for all our lives because of what others think?

There are many laws that mandate particular religious faiths and practices.

Not in america there aint.

We don't have them here, true, but they are common in the rest of the world.

Irrelevant to Obummer. Even somone as stupid as you
should have noticed that he wants to hold office in america.

I think Obama and McCain both care deeply about the perception of the
United States in the eyes of the world. I think most Americans do,
whatever their political bent. I also think most Americans don't give
a crap about what others think of their religion (and with so many
freakazoid religions in this country, that's probably a good thing).

If you think that how the rest of the world views us, it would seem incumbent upon you to understand how religion
drives much of the planet.

Its completely irrlevant to whether Obummer is a muslim or not.

So I still don't get your point in belaboring the whole issue.

Educating the benighted.

Wanking yourself completely blind, actually.

Stormin Mormon wrote:

So the Liberal Democrats want us to elect a man whose loyalty is to the Religion of Pieces?

Nope. And it aint just Liberal Democrats either.

Rod Speed wrote

Obama has said that Reverend Wright "brought him to Christ twenty
years ago." The natural question is what Obama considered himself
before then. For over a billion people, Obama, having been born of a
Muslim father, was considered a Muslim.

Those billion people are also stupid enough to buy the line that some angel whispered
in the ear of some goat ****er and he just wrote down what the angel told him too.

So what ?

In ,
Cindy Hamilton spewed forth:
On Oct 21, 9:28 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
So the Liberal Democrats want us to elect a man whose loyalty is to
the Religion of Pieces?

There's no evidence that Obama's loyalty is to Islam. Otherwise, why
would he have
converted to Christianity? Your argument makes no sense.

I was baptized in the Lutheran church, but I am now an atheist. Would
you consider
that my loyalty is to Christ?

Cindy Hamilton

Here's a quote from his book Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the
Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Make your own judgement from it.

In article om,
"ChairMan" wrote:

Here's a quote from his book Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the
Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

A strong and good statement. Too bad the Germans didn't see things that
way in the 1930s. I take it you don't think much of the family who hid
Anne Frank?

Make your own judgement from it.

My judgement is that a true American will always protect the oppressed.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

It's difficult.

Not so much.

In religious law, the religion determines. One can claim
this and that to their heart's content but if the claim conflicts with
religious law, the adherents to the religion will not accept the claim.

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Under Catholic doctrine, a civil divorce is not a divorce in the eyes of the
Vatican. Under Jewish law, a woman cannot divorce her husband.

Screw Catholicism. Screw Judaism. Screw any organized religion who
thinks that anyone unaffiliated with them should do as they say. In this
country especially, screw any churches who meddle in politics in any
way. Don't just take away their tax exemption. Punish them.

No. But many countries are not as enlightened as we. Leaving aside the
50-odd Muslim-majority countries, you can't hold office in Spain unless you
are Catholic; you can't even VOTE in Finland unless you are a Lutheran. You
may not be a peer in England (or even a member of the Royal Society) unless
you harken to the Anglican Communion. Again, religion and religious law play
important parts in many countries.

And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

If you think that how the rest of the world views us, it would seem
incumbent upon you to understand how religion drives much of the planet.

Nothing at all to do with who we elect in our political system, any more
than our views affect who they put in charge of their churches, temples,
mosques or synagogues.

So I still don't get your point in belaboring the whole issue.

Educating the benighted.

Your stated motives are now suspect.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.

Ken Lay wrote:

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your fortune
certainly - and maybe your life - is subject to forfeit.


Under Catholic doctrine, a civil divorce is not a divorce in the
eyes of the Vatican. Under Jewish law, a woman cannot divorce her
husband.

Screw Catholicism. Screw Judaism. Screw any organized religion who
thinks that anyone unaffiliated with them should do as they say. In
this country especially, screw any churches who meddle in politics in
any way. Don't just take away their tax exemption. Punish them.

Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion. You risk a very parochial
and myopic view to suggest they're wrong.


And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their vote on
what they believe the rest of the world will think of us. I personally think
that's misguided, but it's there nevertheless.

So I still don't get your point in belaboring the whole issue.

Educating the benighted.

Your stated motives are now suspect.

Nobles oblige - the White Man's Burden.

On Oct 21, 6:41*pm, "ChairMan" wrote:
,
Cindy Hamilton spewed forth:

On Oct 21, 9:28 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
So the Liberal Democrats want us to elect a man whose loyalty is to
the Religion of Pieces?

There's no evidence that Obama's loyalty is to Islam. *Otherwise, why
would he have
converted to Christianity? *Your argument makes no sense.

I was baptized in the Lutheran church, but I am now an atheist. *Would
you consider
that my loyalty is to Christ?

Cindy Hamilton

Here's a quote from his book *Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the
Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
Make your own judgement from it.

I'm reading Audacity of Hope, but apparently I haven't got that far
yet.
Could you say which chapter it's in, so I can look it up?

I have to say, in the absense of any context, that quote could mean
anything. If the political winds in the U.S. shifted in an ugly
direction,
and my Muslim friends and neighbors were threatened by lynching,
interment, or similar, I would have to stand with them. (Or at least
stand up for them.)

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
I have to say, in the absense of any context, that quote could mean
anything. If the political winds in the U.S. shifted in an ugly
direction,
and my Muslim friends and neighbors were threatened by lynching,
interment, or similar, I would have to stand with them. (Or at least
stand up for them.)


Aren't you concerned that "there's always room for one more?"

If not, brava.

On Oct 22, 12:18*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
I have to say, in the absense of any context, that quote could mean
anything. *If the political winds in the U.S. shifted in an ugly
direction,
and my Muslim friends and neighbors were threatened by lynching,
interment, or similar, I would have to stand with them. *(Or at least
stand up for them.)

Aren't you concerned that "there's always room for one more?"

If not, brava.

Of course I'm concerned. However, I consider cowardice to be
un-American. Where indeed would we be as a country if
we were afraid to fight the good fight?

It can be tricky to decide which are the good ones.

Cindy Hamilton

HeyBub wrote
Ken Lay wrote

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your fortune certainly - and maybe your life - is
subject to forfeit.

Lie with malaysia.

Under Catholic doctrine, a civil divorce is not a divorce in the eyes of the Vatican. Under Jewish law, a woman
cannot divorce her husband.

Screw Catholicism. Screw Judaism. Screw any organized religion who thinks that anyone unaffiliated with them should
do as they say. In this country especially, screw any churches who meddle in politics in any way. Don't just take
away their tax exemption. Punish them.

Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion.

Another lie. Particularly with the first world.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that Obummer's doesnt.

You risk a very parochial and myopic view to suggest they're wrong.

Wrong, as always. Its those countrys that are stupid enough to have a state-sanctioned religion
that are very parochial and myopic, furiously 'living' in the past thats WAY past its useby date.

And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their vote on what they believe the rest of the world will
think of us.

Not enough to matter.

I personally think that's misguided, but it's there nevertheless.

They're too few to matter a damn outcome wise, you watch.

So I still don't get your point in belaboring the whole issue.

Educating the benighted.

Your stated motives are now suspect.

Nobles oblige - the White Man's Burden.

He's brown, stupid.

Rod Speed wrote:

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or
doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your
fortune certainly - and maybe your life - is subject to forfeit.

Lie with malaysia.

From Wikipedia:
"...is difficult to build new churches. For instance, it took more than
twenty years for the local authority in Shah Alam to allow a church to be
built there, with an additional condition that the church must look like a
factory and not a more conventional church appearance. Most of the time, new
churches are started in a clandestine manner as ordinary businesses in
shops..."

"The Constitution however allows for the restriction of the propagation of
religions other than Islam..."

and so on.



Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion.

Another lie. Particularly with the first world.

Do you consider the UK, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Argentina,
Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, some Canons of Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus,
Scotland, 37 Muslim countries, Israel and a few others as all 2nd-world
countries?


And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their
vote on what they believe the rest of the world will think of us.

Not enough to matter.

Are you kidding? It's one of the tenants of the Obama platform that our
standing the in world community is extremely important.


Educating the benighted.

Your stated motives are now suspect.

Nobles oblige - the White Man's Burden.

He's brown, stupid.

But I'm a white man, and it's my burden. I don't complain - it goes with the
condition.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:

Aren't you concerned that "there's always room for one more?"

If not, brava.

Of course I'm concerned. However, I consider cowardice to be
un-American. Where indeed would we be as a country if
we were afraid to fight the good fight?

It can be tricky to decide which are the good ones.


Not hard.

Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans.

Only the hard. Only the strong.

We march.

For our lands. For our families. For our freedom.

We march.

Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march. Where
Xerxes numbers count for nothing.

Spartans. Citizen soldiers, freed slaves, free Greeks all.

Brothers. Fathers. Sons.

We march.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

We march.

Into Hell's mouth we march.

"Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their hearts
with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors they suffered
at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they stare now across the
plain at TEN THOUSAND Spartans commanding thirty thousand free Greeks!

"The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any Greek. This
day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and usher in a future
brighter than anything we can imagine.

"Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY! "

HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote
HeyBub wrote

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your fortune certainly - and maybe your life - is
subject to forfeit.

Lie with malaysia.

From Wikipedia:
"...is difficult to build new churches.

Nothing like your lie.

For instance, it took more than twenty years for the local authority in Shah Alam to allow a church to be built there,
with an additional condition that the church must look like a factory and not a more conventional church appearance.
Most of the time, new churches are started in a clandestine manner as ordinary businesses in shops..."

Nothing like your lie, and nothing to do with atheism either.

"The Constitution however allows for the restriction of the propagation of religions other than Islam..."

Nothing like your lie, and nothing to do with atheism either.

and so on.

Pathetic.

Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion.

Another lie. Particularly with the first world.

Do you consider the UK, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Argentina, Liechtenstein, Malta, Monaco, some Canons of
Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, Scotland, 37 Muslim countries, Israel and a few others as all 2nd-world countries?

All of those with the exception of the muslim countrys all have freedom of religion, stupid.

And yes, all the muslim countrys are either 2nd or 3rd world countrys.

And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their
vote on what they believe the rest of the world will think of us.

Not enough to matter.

Are you kidding?

Nope.

It's one of the tenants of the Obama platform that our standing the in world community is extremely important.

Irrelevant that stupid claim you made.

Educating the benighted.

Your stated motives are now suspect.

Nobles oblige - the White Man's Burden.

He's brown, stupid.

But I'm a white man,

Your problem.

and it's my burden.

Your problem.

I don't complain

Another of your lies.

- it goes with the condition.

Another of your lies.

HeyBub wrote:
Cindy Hamilton wrote:

Aren't you concerned that "there's always room for one more?"

If not, brava.

Of course I'm concerned. However, I consider cowardice to be
un-American. Where indeed would we be as a country if
we were afraid to fight the good fight?

It can be tricky to decide which are the good ones.


Not hard.

Only the hard and strong may call themselves Spartans.

Only the hard. Only the strong.

We march.

For our lands. For our families. For our freedom.

We march.

Into the Hot Gates we march. Into that narrow corridor we march. Where
Xerxes numbers count for nothing.

Spartans. Citizen soldiers, freed slaves, free Greeks all.

Brothers. Fathers. Sons.

We march.

For honor's sake. For duty's sake. For glory's sake.

We march.

Into Hell's mouth we march.

"Just there the barbarians huddle, sheer terror gripping tight their
hearts with icy fingers... knowing full well what merciless horrors
they suffered at the swords and spears of three hundred. Yet they
stare now across the plain at TEN THOUSAND Spartans commanding thirty
thousand free Greeks!
"The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any
Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and
usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.

"Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY! "

And they got done like a dinner. Funny that.

Rod Speed wrote:

"The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any
Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and
usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.

"Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY! "

And they got done like a dinner. Funny that.

Uh, no. The Greeks won the battle of Plataea. Had they not, you might now be
a Zorastaran.

Of 120,000 Persians, only 43,000 survived. While Persia continued to meddle
in Greek affairs, this was their last attempt to conquer Greece. They were
finally taught the final lesson by Alexander the Great ~150 years later.

HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

"The enemy outnumber us a paltry three to one, good odds for any
Greek. This day we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny and
usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine.

"Give thanks, men, to Leonidas and the brave 300! TO VICTORY! "

And they got done like a dinner. Funny that.

Uh, no.

Fraid so. They couldnt even manage to keep their helots under the thumb.

The Greeks won the battle of Plataea. Had they not, you might now be a Zorastaran.

There were a hell of a lot more greeks than just the spartans.

Of 120,000 Persians, only 43,000 survived. While Persia continued to meddle in Greek affairs, this was their last
attempt to conquer Greece. They were finally taught the final lesson by Alexander the Great ~150 years later.

Who wasnt even a spartan. Funny that.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Ken Lay wrote:

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your fortune
certainly - and maybe your life - is subject to forfeit.

So, once again you have to stretch waaay outside of AMERICA to find any
resemblance of any kind to any ephemeral threat presented by the
election of Obama. You *have* forgotten what country you are in.

Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion. You risk a very parochial
and myopic view to suggest they're wrong.

Not at all. It is a singularly AMERICAN view, endorsed by none other
than Thomas Jefferson and agreed to by every one of the signatories to
the Declaration of Independence.

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their vote on
what they believe the rest of the world will think of us. I personally think
that's misguided, but it's there nevertheless.

First of all, "very many" means nothing.

Next, taking the political views of others- particularly partners- into
account in policy matters is "politic".

Finally, allowing the view of foreign sovereigns to unduly influence the
representative status of domestic policies is SURRENDER. Allowing
religion to unduly influence politics is unAMERICAN.

What defines "undue influence"? That's whenever any representative
government caters to the political demands of any organized religion to
a greater extent than it would cater to the voice of any other
individual.

Nobles oblige - the White Man's Burden.

Noblesse oblige has nothing whatsoever to do with race.
--
Everybody lies. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney just suck at it.

"jdoe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:28:36 -0400, BikeFan
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
JCE wrote:
Now shall we return to Birth Certificates and a father who is supposed
to be Arab, according to the slime balls.

Nobody with any sense has claimed Obama's father was an Arab. His father was
a Muslim (there are Muslims that are not Arabs and vice-versa). Of course,
according to Islamic law, that makes Obama a Muslim (just like someone born
of a Jewish mother is Jewish).

Obama could, of course, renounce Islam and adopt Christianity. Doing so,
however, makes him an apostate and subject to an extreme sanction.


You are talking the biggest load of horse manure. HE IS A CHRISTIAN.

he is? when he was a kid he was a muslim, when did he get baptized?
just because he attended a christian church occasionally doesn't make
him a christian, like everything else in his past all you get is smoke
and mirrors, no real facts

At 5 he was taught to be the terrorist he is today???

And what does it matter if he was a muslim? Does he have to go to your church?
Not that he is, of course.

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...

You are talking the biggest load of horse manure. HE IS A CHRISTIAN.

Actually,Obama himself says it was in Rev.Wright's church where he "became
a Christian".(in one of his books)That would be as an adult.
Obama was born to a Muslim,and according to Islamic experts,that makes him
a Muslim,Obama was educated as a Muslim in two Indonesian
schools(registered as a Muslim in both;no "error"),Obama said himself in
one of his books that he studied Islam and prayed in mosques.NY newspapers
have reported that Obama went to mosque with his stepfather in Indonesia.
All that makes Obama a Muslim.

Islamics all believe that once a Muslim,there's no leaving Islam,else you
are an apostate(murtadd).

So all muslims are the terrorist you are worried about? It sure is good to have
you here to explain the inner workings of people you have never met. How is it
that you know the man so well?

I went to several churches while a child. Does that mean I'm a catholic, or a
Lutheran? Sorry, wrong.

"jdoe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 18:27:04 -0400, Nate Nagel
wrote:


Who freakin' cares? GWB is a card-carrying "Christian" and if they're
all like that I say let's try a Muslim, it couldn't get much worse.

nate
not too bright

No. He's just not stupidly bigoted.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Attending church makes you a Christian like shining a light on you makes
you glow in the dark.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"jdoe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:28:36 -0400, BikeFan

You are talking the biggest load of horse manure. HE IS A CHRISTIAN.

he is? when he was a kid he was a muslim, when did he get baptized?
just because he attended a christian church occasionally doesn't make
him a christian, like everything else in his past all you get is smoke
and mirrors, no real facts

You guys are going to have some rough years coming. All the lies you've been
sold couldn't get McCain elected.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

Now someone born of a Jewish mother is Jewish even if they convert to (say)
Christianity. That is, one can be a Christian and a Jew. This is not the case
with Islam.

One does not inherit the faith with Christianity, as he does with Judaism or
Islam.

Obama has said that Reverend Wright "brought him to Christ twenty years ago."
The natural question is what Obama considered himself before then. For over a
billion people, Obama, having been born of a Muslim father, was considered a
Muslim.

If he doesn't consider himself a Muslim, he's not. Just because I went to Church
there for a while as a kid, doesn't make me a Catholic. Jeeeze, you guys make a
big deal about going to school in another country. His father left when He was
2. Give it a rest.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Ken Lay wrote:

Why should any non-adherent care what the religion accepts or doesn't?

Any? Try being a Christian in Iran or an atheist in Malaysia. Your fortune
certainly - and maybe your life - is subject to forfeit.

And that affects us in how we vote exactly how?



Under Catholic doctrine, a civil divorce is not a divorce in the
eyes of the Vatican. Under Jewish law, a woman cannot divorce her
husband.

Screw Catholicism. Screw Judaism. Screw any organized religion who
thinks that anyone unaffiliated with them should do as they say. In
this country especially, screw any churches who meddle in politics in
any way. Don't just take away their tax exemption. Punish them.

Most countries have a state-sanctioned religion. You risk a very parochial and
myopic view to suggest they're wrong.

And you are ready to do so here, it seems.



And this affects this nation's election how, exactly?

Very many - VERY MANY - people in this election are basing their vote on what
they believe the rest of the world will think of us. I personally think that's
misguided, but it's there nevertheless.

It's one important issue among many. We have to work with the world, unless we
want them working against us.

"Ken Lay" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ChairMan" wrote:

Here's a quote from his book Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the
Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

A strong and good statement. Too bad the Germans didn't see things that
way in the 1930s. I take it you don't think much of the family who hid
Anne Frank?

Make your own judgement from it.

My judgement is that a true American will always protect the oppressed.
--

As should any good Christian.

"retired54" wrote in message
...



I think "Joe the Pretend Plumber" is just some guy that got caught up in
this and was exposed as a fraud. The guy makes $40k, doesn't have a license,
owes back taxes, and he wants to buy a business that is going to gross over
$250k? Talk about sub-prime lending!
^^^^^

I think you mean "net." If he grosses only $250K (assuming he has some
expenses), then he's still better off with Obama.


I'm thinking of a paycheck.

For a business it's: income - allowable deductions (inc. cost of goods sold)
= taxable income. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's been awhile since I looked at financials obviously.

olddog



You're dead on.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Michael B wrote:

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.


Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but
some. Obama does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes -
with him, it's not a matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he
draws the line.

At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills
instead of accumulating debt.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me
whether it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a
yellow van. Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes
will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time will never get
my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for
us.

Actually, under the Bush administration, taxes on everybody were lowered. As a
result, we had six years of a pretty good economic climate: Low inflation, low
unemployment, 21 months of continued economic growth. This in spite of 911,
Katrina, and two wars. Then the Democrats took over.

In less than 20 months they managed to **** things up beyond all recognition.

LOL!!!

Is there anything a Republican has EVER done wrong?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --


Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't bother to
look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a deficit,
like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues. When taxes are
lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy expands, federal revenues
are increased.

Prove it. I've heard it a million times. but that does not make it true.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
Buffett is also the one who is calling for
an inheritance tax despite the fact he is going to give it all away and
thus not owe anything.

And you have a problem with that? Could it not be that every penny he gives away
is going to help improve this world? That's more than most of the inheritances
that will be taxed (or not) will do. Or goody, one more rich kid having fun with
the world.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think
of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over
her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?


She tried to, which is why she was under oath giving testimony this week.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote:

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?

Only because she was told to **** off when she tried to do that.

Right. No harm, no foul.


It may not work out that way. Sorry. There are laws even govenors have to obey.
And, she better not get caught lying under oath.

"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?


Apparently she tried, and with enough vigor to cause the resignation
of a dedicated civil servant. That should be enough to call her
judgment and ethics into question.

Hmm. Inasmuch as the Alaska Director of Public Safety serves at the pleasure
of the governor (most appointments are 'at will' employment), I see the
double-standard again in play.

Clinton fired all twelve U.S. Attorneys and, after some grousing, got away
with it. Bush fired a similar wad of U.S. Attorneys and is being investigated
by several congressional committees.

Point is, when a Democrat fires someone who serves at the pleasure of the
chief executive, the prerogatives of the chief's office are recognized and
accepted. When a Republican does pretty much the same, the Republican is
vilified.

Being a Republican is sorta like being a Negro. We have to work twice as hard
and be twice as good to compete with the other party.
It was Republicans who freed the slaves. Something Negro Americans
refuse to believe. The Klan members were Democrats, another simple
fact that Negro Americans have forgotten. The Democrats have pulled
wool over the eyes of my darker skinned brethren and it makes me sad
for them because the Democrats keep them enslaved. They just use a
different approach. BTW, I'm not a Republican and I'm certainly not
a Democrat.

And those republicans are the same as today's?

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Lets see, that would be "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his needs". And Obama's crew want to be the one who decides who
has "too much ability" and who has how much needs. How un-American. Or would
that be UN-american?

Show me the real evidence that you have that he believes what you say. And not
just the stupid "spread the wealth" remark that the media is repeating over and
over. That hardly qualifies.

"Bob F" wrote in message
. ..

"HeyBub" wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote:

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?

Only because she was told to **** off when she tried to do that.

Right. No harm, no foul.


It may not work out that way. Sorry. There are laws even govenors have to
obey. And, she better not get caught lying under oath.

LMAO,

the bitch IS stupid enough to lie her ass off

Bob F wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?


Apparently she tried, and with enough vigor to cause the resignation
of a dedicated civil servant. That should be enough to call her
judgment and ethics into question.
Hmm. Inasmuch as the Alaska Director of Public Safety serves at the pleasure
of the governor (most appointments are 'at will' employment), I see the
double-standard again in play.

Clinton fired all twelve U.S. Attorneys and, after some grousing, got away
with it. Bush fired a similar wad of U.S. Attorneys and is being investigated
by several congressional committees.

Point is, when a Democrat fires someone who serves at the pleasure of the
chief executive, the prerogatives of the chief's office are recognized and
accepted. When a Republican does pretty much the same, the Republican is
vilified.

Being a Republican is sorta like being a Negro. We have to work twice as hard
and be twice as good to compete with the other party.
It was Republicans who freed the slaves. Something Negro Americans
refuse to believe. The Klan members were Democrats, another simple
fact that Negro Americans have forgotten. The Democrats have pulled
wool over the eyes of my darker skinned brethren and it makes me sad
for them because the Democrats keep them enslaved. They just use a
different approach. BTW, I'm not a Republican and I'm certainly not
a Democrat.

And those republicans are the same as today's?


You forgot to ask if the Democrats are the same.

TDD

On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:01:06 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?


Apparently she tried, and with enough vigor to cause the resignation
of a dedicated civil servant. That should be enough to call her
judgment and ethics into question.
Hmm. Inasmuch as the Alaska Director of Public Safety serves at the pleasure
of the governor (most appointments are 'at will' employment), I see the
double-standard again in play.

Clinton fired all twelve U.S. Attorneys and, after some grousing, got away
with it. Bush fired a similar wad of U.S. Attorneys and is being investigated
by several congressional committees.

Point is, when a Democrat fires someone who serves at the pleasure of the
chief executive, the prerogatives of the chief's office are recognized and
accepted. When a Republican does pretty much the same, the Republican is
vilified.

Being a Republican is sorta like being a Negro. We have to work twice as hard
and be twice as good to compete with the other party.
It was Republicans who freed the slaves. Something Negro Americans
refuse to believe. The Klan members were Democrats, another simple
fact that Negro Americans have forgotten. The Democrats have pulled
wool over the eyes of my darker skinned brethren and it makes me sad
for them because the Democrats keep them enslaved. They just use a
different approach. BTW, I'm not a Republican and I'm certainly not
a Democrat.

And those republicans are the same as today's?


You forgot to ask if the Democrats are the same.

Irrelevent. Nobody claimed that democrats are the same.

AZ Nomad wrote:
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 10:01:06 -0500, The Daring Dufas wrote:
Bob F wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:
So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?


Apparently she tried, and with enough vigor to cause the resignation
of a dedicated civil servant. That should be enough to call her
judgment and ethics into question.
Hmm. Inasmuch as the Alaska Director of Public Safety serves at the pleasure
of the governor (most appointments are 'at will' employment), I see the
double-standard again in play.

Clinton fired all twelve U.S. Attorneys and, after some grousing, got away
with it. Bush fired a similar wad of U.S. Attorneys and is being investigated
by several congressional committees.

Point is, when a Democrat fires someone who serves at the pleasure of the
chief executive, the prerogatives of the chief's office are recognized and
accepted. When a Republican does pretty much the same, the Republican is
vilified.

Being a Republican is sorta like being a Negro. We have to work twice as hard
and be twice as good to compete with the other party.
It was Republicans who freed the slaves. Something Negro Americans
refuse to believe. The Klan members were Democrats, another simple
fact that Negro Americans have forgotten. The Democrats have pulled
wool over the eyes of my darker skinned brethren and it makes me sad
for them because the Democrats keep them enslaved. They just use a
different approach. BTW, I'm not a Republican and I'm certainly not
a Democrat.
And those republicans are the same as today's?


You forgot to ask if the Democrats are the same.

Irrelevent. Nobody claimed that democrats are the same.

Irreverent. No one claimed that Republicans are the same.
Suggestion, learn to spell. Poor grammar and spelling will
lead people to think that you're a Democrat.

TDD