cm wrote:
Chris,

Maybe you need a new sex partner. GRIN

Do you want to make that suggestion to HER in person? Can be arranged:)



cm
"Chris" wrote in message ...
badgolferman wrote:
wrote:

Now we have hope that our new President, governing
from the center, will nominate centrist Justices who
don't cynically interpret the Constitution for the
benefit of religious fanatics, corporate thieves
and anti-environmental hatchetmen.
I think you have been drinking the MoveOn kool-aid too much. Obama is
the most socialist senator in the Congress and his policies have
reflected such. If you're happy that's great but I will be even
happier when you share your wealth with me because I certainly will
need it when there are no more jobs to go around and energy costs
skyrocket. Let us know if you're still happy in two years.

Promised, I will. Until then, how about you start using your own brains?
Try it, thinking on your own is a wonderful feeling, better than sex.

Jim Yanik wrote:
Chris wrote in :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far
left socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
continue the failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people,
spend on social programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.
Separate the nation with two sets of laws, one set of laws for the
powerful and the other set of laws for the proletariat.

More party talking points? Why am I not surprised? Even McCain stopped
using this .... (four letter word here). You didn't get the memo,
obviously.

These are NOT "party talking points".
that's just Alinsky 101,straight out of Rules for Radicals.



Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a "flawed
document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by the
Constitution",

do you have a quote or reference? And BTW I'm not going to fall for the
obvious answer that comes to mind ( Which would be: "It's the GOP that
made quick work of the Constitution, habeas corpus, torture, no legal
defense etc..."

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:32:08 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:


Look again. They just got a new honcho. Lets wait and see how the
first few confrontations go before we go jumping to completely
unfounded conclusions about who is in charge and what direction we are
headed. I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm very hopeful that he works
out. We need to do much better than we have on so many fronts. Maybe
he's the answer, and maybe he's a dud. We really don't know yet.Not
even his biggest supporters know that yet. Lets give him a little
breathing room to show us what he can do before we decide to bury him.

We'll see. The honcho is at one end of Pennsylvania Ave and I am
talking about the other end. Hard to think that old dogs will change
their stripes (hopelessly muddle the metaphor).



Obama is hardly the only Democrat involved,
even assuming he turns out to be different in the long run. Which the
cynic in me is waiting to see.

Yep, cynicism is a very positive outlook that always gets things done,
and in the best way.

Worked for me through both Dem and GOP administrations. Lots easier to
be pleasantly surprised that way.

Next time, try skepticism. It's a lot more productive than cynicism.

He will also raise taxes on the middle class because he won't be able
to pay for all the new social programs the Democrats have proposed even
if the cut back defense spending by 25% as Barney the Frank has
promised. By the way, does anyone know what this Civilian National
Force that will be just as powerful, just as well-funded as the
military going to be?


Remember the Schutzstaffel? Those of us old enough to remember should be
experiencing some déjà vu right about now. And in a very bad way.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:44:34 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 5, 2:29*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:



Bush made it quite clear that his idea of bi-partisan was when
everybody agreed to go along with his position. He was not interested
in any other viewpoints.

* Which is pretty much the Dem's view of bipartisanship too. GW's trust
in the concepts of bipartisanship were forged in Daddy's administration,
especially the outcome of the Budget Mugging... er Summit 1990. The Dems
said they wouldn't come to the table without a "bi-partisan" agenda that
included both tax increases and budget cuts. When Daddy responded in a
bipartisan manner and gave in on tax cuts, the Dems proceeded to pound
him soundly about the face and head with "read my lips". Oh, and they
sorta forgot to get around to the cuts.
* Both sides have for a long time viewed bipartisanship as "you lay down
and take it whilst I do whatever I want". *And this was pretty much
independent of the party's majority or minority status at the time.

Sort of reminds me of those great Texas Democrats a few years back who
left the state to hide out rather than compromise. The democratic
answer is always to run from responsibility.

Boy, are you ever uninformed. Texas Democrats are basically
Republicans. That's why it was such a joke when GWB bragged about his
ability to "reach across the aisle" when he was governor in Texas. It
wasn't much of a reach.

On 6 Nov 2008 00:30:11 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in
:

In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote:


Interestingly(and ironically),Obama would not have qualified for a
security clearance,but now he's got access to all US secrets.
I'll bite. Why not?


His close associations with felons,terrorists,and communists/Marxists.
Ayers/Dorhn alone would kill the deal.Or Rashid Khalili.

McCain, on the other hand lived with a bunch of Communists who were
sworn enemies of the United States for 5 years. He even publicly
supported them.

On 6 Nov 2008 00:31:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Frank wrote in
:

cm wrote:
Mortimer,

You don't think the Democrats had anything to do with our current
situation? Both sides have created this mess. The left and right only
get further apart. Scary stuff.
Good luck President elect Obama.

cm

That would essentially be my response.

I do not wish good luck to Obama unless he is not the radical
socialist he ran as.


He's MORE radical than what he ran as.
He and the mainstream media hid much about Obama.

Attention Jim Yanik: The world has just passed you by.

On 6 Nov 2008 00:55:54 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:kurtullman-
:

In article ,
"Lisa BB." wrote:



The way republicans like to name call by misspelling names is so
disgusting. That name calling is the stuff little children do.
Oh, and a Dem never used "Shrub", etc. The misspellings are much more
of a indication of the level of the poster, not the party they may (or
more likely may not) belong to.




Bu****ler is another excellent example of Dem hate.

you want hate,examine the Daily Kos. Or the false calls on "racism".

Why go to all that troub;e when we can just read your posts for a
daily dose of mindless hate?

wrote in message
...

...with joy and relief, as I looked out on the crowds in Grant Park
celebrating the election of our new president. So many people -- young
and old, black and white, had tears running down their faces

Obama's speech was just like him -- direct, simple, eloquent,
and quintessentially American. He called us to work for the common
good -- not to go shopping.

The "relief" I felt comes partly from lifting the terrible fear that
hung over me for so long: That the next president would appoint
Supreme Court justices who would send our beloved country
even further down the road to a quasi-totalitarian state ruled --
as it has been for the last eight years -- by unchecked corporate
greed unmatched in my (long) voting memory.

Now, Justice Stevens, at 88, may feel it safe to retire,
and Justice Souter may leave the Court where he has
not lately been too happy. The cabal of Scalia, Thomas,
Alito and Roberts will be on the OTHER side of the 5-4
decisions that have so cynically sold us out on every
aspect of our lives.

People don't often stop and think how directly their lives
are affected by the Supreme Court's decisions.

Now we have hope that our new President, governing
from the center, will nominate centrist Justices who
don't cynically interpret the Constitution for the
benefit of religious fanatics, corporate thieves
and anti-environmental hatchetmen.

Obama - You're going to need all the luck in the world,
bringing together a divided nation

"The Audacity of Hope" -- he was already looking far, far ahead.

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young people were
waving.

Steve

On Nov 5, 5:50*pm, Norminn wrote:
Chris wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far
left socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
continue the failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people,
spend on social programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.
Separate the nation with two sets of laws, one set of laws for the
powerful and the other set of laws for the proletariat.

More party talking points? Why am I not surprised? Even McCain stopped
using this .... (four letter word here). You didn't get the memo,
obviously.

Everyone wants the pie but NOBODY wants to pay for it.........we want
great health care, low deductible, everything covered and low
premium. *Ain't gonna happen. *Every new care produced in US costs about
$1200 or more.........just the fighting over whether
a given health problem is to be paid, or is work related, costs huge
sums for employers. *I'd like to see a system that covers basic
health issues - no catastrophic, no transplants, no life-style
crap.......then give workers the option of having such a plan with a
waiver for work-related stuff. *If someone wants catastrophic or work
related coverage, pay higher premium. *I read about
people in their seventies having transplants of various sorts - I don't
insist on living forever, never wanted a litter of babies,
etc. *We need more competition in healthcare? *Rubbish - that means a
lot more dollars going for advertising. *The CEO
of United Healthcare (adverts on TV every 30 seconds) made more than 120
million bucks. *They send out so much
junk mail we will need to build another landfill. *McCain wanted to tax
employer paid health plans, as goofy as it gets.
HC is going up fast and the 2500/5000 "tax credit" would soon kill off
such plans.

When you say that nobody wants to pay for it hou hit the nail on the
head. Reminds me of a neighbor who was married with two kids, a nice
consulting job, a half-million dollar home, two brand new luxury cars,
a country club membership and a very expensive boat he kept at a
marina in Galveston. He never stopped bitching about the fact that he
couldn't afford health insurance. The real fact being that he didn't
want to pay for health insurance which might cut into his money for
everthing else. People always seem to come up with money for
cigarettes, booze, gambling, and a host of other things that can
destroy their health but bitch about spending $50 for a copay.

On Nov 5, 6:06*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...
On Nov 5, 10:22 am, wrote:





On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:17:19 GMT, "joe" wrote:
Just a centrist party? How about a five party system? the current left and
right would occupy the extremes, then just fill the inbetween. You could
get your party, then a liberal/conservative and a conservative/liberal.. It
would be interesting, anyway.

I won't hold my breath for it however.

jc

You guys both need to take a deep breath and read what I wrote a
second time. Despite the hysterics, Obama is, in fact, within a stones
throw of the center, as is John McCain. That's precisely why the vote
was as close as it was. I think you are going to see John McCain doing
his best to work with Obama for the common goal of moving us forward
and fixing some of the damge wrought in the past 8 years. You will
also see all those who really want to "put America first" doing the
same.

get out of "campaign mode". The campaign is now OVER and the fat lady
has sung. Watch John McCain and follow his example.

"Mortimer Schnerd, RN" mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:07:37 -0800, "Zoot" wrote:
The popular vote split indicates that we all average out near the
center. That's not divided - it's unified. All we lacked was a leader
who undferstands that.

The political parties need to understand it as well. This pandering to
the extremes of the left and right are what's divided the country. I
would love to have a centrist party.

The Republicans left me behind when they started kissing fundamentalist
ass. And the Democrats conspire to deprive me of my God given right to
defend myself by their attempts to redefine the 2nd Amendment.

I know very few people who would buy all of their party's positions. Most
of them are like me, who agree with aspects of both.... but not all. The
parties need to move closer to us instead of expecting us to come to them.

--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Obama is no where near the center except when he is trying to get
elected. *If you had really looked into Obama's past and what he
stands for you would know that. *Instead you listened only to the
election lies and fell for them hook line and sinker.

************************************************** ****8

Yep. All of america just "fell for the lies". Either that, or you're a wacko.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

ALL of America? Nope, not ALL of America but way too many that is
clear. Apparently you just round everthing up to a whole to suit your
own purposes. There is an old saying that clearly applies here...

You can fool all of the people some of the time,
You can fool some of the people all of the time,
but
You can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Obama managed to fool some of the people all of the time but failed by
a large margin to fool all of the people for even some of the time.

Jim Yanik wrote:


Obama's presidency only strengthens democracy through-out the world.

there's no such thing as "strength through weakness".
Obama is going to cut many military programs,allow "gays" in the
military,destroying it's effectiveness,and not consider the military
as a option in any way.

Obama can't allow gays in the military. Likewise, protesting against
military recruiting on college campuses (or at a storefront in Berkely) is
silly. Neither the president nor the military have any control over the
situation.

It's a federal law.

Norminn wrote:



Now that one of Obama's most trusted advisors - Rahm Emanuel - is
heading transition team
and possibly the next Chief of Staff, wonder if the "closet Muslim"
sect still believes? Seems
more like just an excuse for racism to me. And so what if he was a
Muslim ... more Christian
than a lot of Christians ) But, gotta have someone to hate - Japs,
gooks, etc. Running out
of groups unless the Martians come soon )

"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs" (Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr.).

"A mass movement can exist without a god, but it will always fail without a
devil. A mass movement must have something to hate." (Eric Hoffer)

On Nov 5, 7:24*pm, "CP" wrote:
"badgolferman" wrote in message

...

He will also raise taxes on the middle class because he won't be able
to pay for all the new social programs the Democrats have proposed even
if the cut back defense spending by 25% as Barney the Frank has
promised. *By the way, does anyone know what this Civilian National
Force that will be just as powerful, just as well-funded as the
military going to be?

Out of all these "new" social programs, surely you can name one. *Oh wait,
Rush didn't list any, he was just blabbering as usual.

****, you mean you voted for the man and can't even list the programs
he was proposing? Guess all you heard was "CHANGE" and you wanted
some.

On Nov 5, 8:20*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:44:34 -0800 (PST), BobR





wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:29*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Bush made it quite clear that his idea of bi-partisan was when
everybody agreed to go along with his position. He was not interested
in any other viewpoints.

* Which is pretty much the Dem's view of bipartisanship too. GW's trust
in the concepts of bipartisanship were forged in Daddy's administration,
especially the outcome of the Budget Mugging... er Summit 1990. The Dems
said they wouldn't come to the table without a "bi-partisan" agenda that
included both tax increases and budget cuts. When Daddy responded in a
bipartisan manner and gave in on tax cuts, the Dems proceeded to pound
him soundly about the face and head with "read my lips". Oh, and they
sorta forgot to get around to the cuts.
* Both sides have for a long time viewed bipartisanship as "you lay down
and take it whilst I do whatever I want". *And this was pretty much
independent of the party's majority or minority status at the time.

Sort of reminds me of those great Texas Democrats a few years back who
left the state to hide out rather than compromise. *The democratic
answer is always to run from responsibility.

Boy, are you ever uninformed. Texas Democrats are basically
Republicans. That's why it was such a joke when GWB bragged about his
ability to "reach across the aisle" when he was governor in Texas. It
wasn't much of a reach.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yes, that is what they want the majority in Texas to believe but
make no mistake, they are liberal democraps in every way possible.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Norminn wrote:



Now that one of Obama's most trusted advisors - Rahm Emanuel - is
heading transition team
and possibly the next Chief of Staff, wonder if the "closet Muslim"
sect still believes? Seems
more like just an excuse for racism to me. And so what if he was a
Muslim ... more Christian
than a lot of Christians ) But, gotta have someone to hate - Japs,
gooks, etc. Running out
of groups unless the Martians come soon )

"Kill Japs, kill Japs, kill more Japs" (Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Jr.).

"A mass movement can exist without a god, but it will always fail without a
devil. A mass movement must have something to hate." (Eric Hoffer)

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late

to work within the system, but too early to shoot

the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Coleah wrote:


"Put America First"....just what exactly does that mean?

How? and by who's standard of interpretation?
As in...the rest of the world can take a back seat?

Could we.....
Start buying products and goods made in the USA?
No matter if they are lower quality and more expensive?
[Perhaps American workers can start to pay more attention, be more
thorough, become more competent and raise their personal standards of
quality?]

That is exactly the WRONG thing to do. Adam Smith firmly put this silliness
to rest in the 18th Century with his work "The Wealth of Nations." Each
country should do what it does best and trade for the products and services
of what another country does better. That way everybody prospers.


Could we......
Forget about all the bleeding heart foreign aid and take care of our
own people better?

Very little of our foreign aid is in cash. Virtually all of our foreign aid
is in the form of purchase credits against the goods and services of
American companies (food, fighter planes, etc.). As such, it is a direct
subsidy to American workers.

BobR wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:07 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

I know very few people who would buy all of their party's
positions. Most of them are like me, who agree with aspects of
both.... but not
all. The parties need to move closer to us instead of expecting us
to come to them.

The political parties accurately reflect the views of their
membership. If you want them to change, get active in the party of
your choice and become an advocate.

It's the "independent" voter who's the most dependent of all. He has
no say in who the candidates will be, he has no voice in the
platform, policies, or practices of either party. After the
election, he has no influence or power over the elected officials.

To a politician, an independent voter is like a dust storm. He shows
up once every four years, creates a mess and much confusion, and has
to be dealt with. After that, he's ignored until next time.

That is something that the majority of people in this country totally
ignore. You are not participating in the process by just voting in
the presidential election every four years. Just the opposite, you
are in effect supporting the worst that the two parties have to
offer. If you really want a government that represents you...you must
get involved at every level from the local precinct to the oval
office.

Exactly. Knock on doors, contribute what you can, attend meetings, clip
newspapers, pass out literature, register voters (except those of another
party), write letters, hold 'meet & greets,' whatever.

Some people think all those yard signs and bumper stickers just miracle
themselves into existence!

Suppose the campaign decides to send the candidate to your town 24 hours
from now. How do you think 10,000 people get the word to show up? How do the
bottles of water and the porta-potties materialize?

There's a complicated organization behind even the most innocent-looking
political event. That organization needs people and money. You can help.

Many years ago, I started at the bottom and worked up to being in charge of
ballot security for my county. For the next election, I was planning on
being part of the 'Black Ops Brigade' (dirty tricks, wire-tapping,
espionage, theft, intimidation, blackmail, assinations, etc.), but other
events interceded.

Chris wrote:

Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a "flawed
document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by the
Constitution",

do you have a quote or reference? And BTW I'm not going to fall for
the obvious answer that comes to mind ( Which would be: "It's the GOP
that made quick work of the Constitution, habeas corpus, torture, no
legal defense etc..."

Chicago Public Radio, September 2001. Audio he
http://beltwayblips.com/video/obama_...ntinues_today/

"Chris" wrote in message ...
Jim Yanik wrote:
Chris wrote in :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far
left socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
continue the failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people,
spend on social programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.
Separate the nation with two sets of laws, one set of laws for the
powerful and the other set of laws for the proletariat.

More party talking points? Why am I not surprised? Even McCain stopped
using this .... (four letter word here). You didn't get the memo,
obviously.
These are NOT "party talking points". that's just Alinsky 101,straight
out of Rules for Radicals.



Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a "flawed
document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by the
Constitution",

do you have a quote or reference? And BTW I'm not going to fall for the
obvious answer that comes to mind ( Which would be: "It's the GOP that
made quick work of the Constitution, habeas corpus, torture, no legal
defense etc..."

I heard the man say it. May not be good enough for you, but it is for me.

Steve

HeyBub:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Towards socialism.

If history repeats itself, Obama will be tested. Recent examples:

JFK - 5 months into his administration, the Berlin Wall was erected.
JFK does nothing.
7 months actually and there was nothing to do. The wall was built inside
East Germany at the direction of the Soviet Union, where before existed a
barbed wire fence. This might be the kind of thing an idiot like GW might
go to war over but no reasonable person would.

Reagan - 2 minutes after inauguration, Iran releases hostages.
How was this a test?

Bush II - 9 months, WTC terrorist attack, Bush makes up a series of lies
to justify his desire to invade Iraq despite long held opinions that there
was no clear exit strategy and that the country would devolve into chaos;
opinions that turned out correct.

Fixed for you. Bush Jr. failed his test catastrophically, weakened our
alliances, has allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate, threatened our
Bill of Rights, failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, all but lost
the war in Afghanistan, failed to secure Iraq allowing the theft of
millions of dollars worth of antiquities, weapons and US cash; allowed Al-
Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq. It really is amazing that anyone could
delude themselves to the point of voting for another four years of that
crap.

SteveB, 11/5/2008,9:42:47 PM, wrote:

I almost cried when I saw the hammer and sycle flags they young
people were waving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEtLFJjFQCA

Chris, 11/5/2008,9:16:45 PM, wrote:

Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a
"flawed document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by
the Constitution",

do you have a quote or reference?

Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VctiYQplw8

--
"Some folks are wise and some are otherwise." ~ Tobias George Smolett

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 20:09:06 -0600, Chris wrote:

cm wrote:
Chris,

Maybe you need a new sex partner. GRIN

Do you want to make that suggestion to HER in person? Can be arranged:)



Why? Is she asking for a new sex partner, too?

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:09:19 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 5, 8:20*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 15:44:34 -0800 (PST), BobR





wrote:
On Nov 5, 2:29*pm, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

Bush made it quite clear that his idea of bi-partisan was when
everybody agreed to go along with his position. He was not interested
in any other viewpoints.

* Which is pretty much the Dem's view of bipartisanship too. GW's trust
in the concepts of bipartisanship were forged in Daddy's administration,
especially the outcome of the Budget Mugging... er Summit 1990. The Dems
said they wouldn't come to the table without a "bi-partisan" agenda that
included both tax increases and budget cuts. When Daddy responded in a
bipartisan manner and gave in on tax cuts, the Dems proceeded to pound
him soundly about the face and head with "read my lips". Oh, and they
sorta forgot to get around to the cuts.
* Both sides have for a long time viewed bipartisanship as "you lay down
and take it whilst I do whatever I want". *And this was pretty much
independent of the party's majority or minority status at the time.

Sort of reminds me of those great Texas Democrats a few years back who
left the state to hide out rather than compromise. *The democratic
answer is always to run from responsibility.

Boy, are you ever uninformed. Texas Democrats are basically
Republicans. That's why it was such a joke when GWB bragged about his
ability to "reach across the aisle" when he was governor in Texas. It
wasn't much of a reach.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh yes, that is what they want the majority in Texas to believe but
make no mistake, they are liberal democraps in every way possible.

Well, when you didn't know that Texas Democrats are basically
Republicans, you were merely ignorant. Now you've promoted yourself to
being full bore stupid.

Bob F wrote:

Not only Putin but the Iranian mullahs. They are just as crafty and
even more ruthless than Putin. But of course Obama wants to sit
down and have tea and goat cheese with them while they're murdering
brave young American soldiers behind his back.

Do you have any idea how stupid this kind of statement makes you look?


Which part of my statement do you disagree with?

a) The mullahs are just as crafty
b) more ruthless than Putin
c) Obama wants to sit down with them
d) have tea and goat cheese
e) they're murdering brave young Americans

CP wrote:


"badgolferman" wrote in message
...

He will also raise taxes on the middle class because he won't be
able to pay for all the new social programs the Democrats have
proposed even if the cut back defense spending by 25% as Barney the
Frank has promised. By the way, does anyone know what this
Civilian National Force that will be just as powerful, just as
well-funded as the military going to be?

Out of all these "new" social programs, surely you can name one. Oh
wait, Rush didn't list any, he was just blabbering as usual.

Here's just a few. Maybe if you had done your homework rather than
take the pablum force fed by the media you would have seen it before.
--------

Obama has proposed at least $287 billion per year in new government
spending if elected. This was before he unveiled his $150 billion
“green energy plan” earlier in February. In addition, he has recently
proposed at least $858 billion to fight “global poverty” over the next
five years. His new spending programs would cost at the minimum, $800
billion a year.

On taxes, he has proposed a $1.3 trillion tax hike over the next five
years. He would increase taxes on business, investment and job
creation. His proposals would nearly double taxes on capital gains.

On health ca “A President Obama would take America down the road to
a government-run health care system. … The government would determine
what types of benefits you would be required to purchase and how much
insurers could charge.” He would mandate that all employers provide
health insurance for their employees.

On a “living wage,” Obama would force business to pay employees an
undefined “living wage,” which would include paid family and medical
leave.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=3272

Mac Cool wrote:
HeyBub:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Towards socialism.

If history repeats itself, Obama will be tested. Recent examples:

JFK - 5 months into his administration, the Berlin Wall was erected.
JFK does nothing.
7 months actually and there was nothing to do. The wall was built
inside East Germany at the direction of the Soviet Union, where
before existed a barbed wire fence. This might be the kind of thing
an idiot like GW might go to war over but no reasonable person would.

Reagan - 2 minutes after inauguration, Iran releases hostages.
How was this a test?

Bush II - 9 months, WTC terrorist attack, Bush makes up a series of
lies
to justify his desire to invade Iraq despite long held opinions that
there was no clear exit strategy and that the country would devolve
into chaos; opinions that turned out correct.

Fixed for you. Bush Jr. failed his test catastrophically, weakened our
alliances, has allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate, threatened
our Bill of Rights, failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden, all
but lost the war in Afghanistan, failed to secure Iraq allowing the
theft of millions of dollars worth of antiquities, weapons and US
cash; allowed Al- Qaeda to gain a foothold in Iraq. It really is
amazing that anyone could delude themselves to the point of voting
for another four years of that crap.

Observations on your opinion of the Bush activities:

Weakened our alliances - Maybe. 'Strong alliances' is a sop to the past.
Countries always do what is in their own best interests. Witness France,
Germany, Russia, and others subverting the oil-for-food U.N. program.

Deteriorating infrastructure - The federal government has almost no role in
infastructure (interstate highways, some airports excepted). Falling bridges
are the responsibility of individual states.

Lost war in Afghanistan - Remember, the war in Afghanistan is a NATO war,
not a U.S. one. As such, it kind of puts paid to your ideal of 'strong
alliances.'

Bill of Rights - In times of peril, rights are often curtailed. That's just
the way it is. From the Whiskey Rebellion, to Lincoln suspending habeas
Corpus, to FDR interning Japanese, restrictions happen. When normalcy
returns, so do rights. Every state - and the federal government - has a
statute that allows the chief executive to suspend virtually any law or
regulation on the books to deal with the emergency. For example, here's the
model Public Health Emergency Act:

http://www.publichealthlaw.net/MSEHPA/MSEHPA.pdf

which allows persons, property, or just about anything else to be seized,
contained, or destroyed without warrants, hearings, lawyers, or any other
"right" solely on the decision of (usually) a single individual. Similar
statutes are already on the books and are exercised every year by governors
dealing with the aftermath of tornados, floods, hurricanes, or Grateful Dead
concerts.

Further, the only reasonable claim of recent BOR violations stems from
intercepting communications without a warrant. The first wire-tapping that
ever took place occurred during the Second War of Independence when both the
Union and the Confederacy tapped the opposition's telegraph lines. To not do
so is to subscribe to Henry Stimpson's 1929 dictum: "Gentelmen don't read
other gentelmen's mail" as he shut down the State Department's cryptanalytic
office.

And so on. Point is, there are often several ways of looking at the same set
of events. Sadly, those not schooled in history or law often reach
simplistic conclusions. As one Supreme Court justice said: "The Bill of
Rights is not a suicide pact."

Minor correction: In spite of agitation to the contrary, it was never the
goal of the United States to kill or capture bin Laden. If either happened,
it would be a plus, but the goal of the U.S. since just about day one was to
prevent another attack on the United States or U.S. civilian interests
abroad. Focusing on a single individual or group is law-enforcement-think,
not war strategy.

This goal - preventing an attack - involved intervention in terrorist
communications, training, financing, support, movement, recruiting, and the
harboring of terrorists by friendly regimes. These efforts have, so far,
proved successful.

In the decade of the '90's, there was about one attack per year on U.S.
interests: WTC1, the USS Cole, embassy bombing, kidnapping of diplomats, and
so on. In the past seven years, coincident with the above plans, there have
been no attacks, successful or otherwise, against the U.S. or U.S. civilian
interests abroad.

Bob F wrote:
"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
Obama was ranked as the MOST LEFTIST of the entire Senate.
OTOH,McCain is considered a RINO,that would make him "centrist".

By eactly who? You are trying to tell me that he is left of Bernie Sanders? You
are an idiot.

Interestingly(and ironically),Obama would not have qualified for a security
clearance,but now he's got access to all US secrets.

Says who? You? You are an Idiot.




Why call someone an idiot just because you don't understand a process?

Clearly you have never been through the process of getting a security
clearance. You need to fill out a comprehensive questionnaire which
requires you to list everyone from childhood friends all the way up to
people you associate with and of course your parents etc.

I worked for a company that went after business that required everyone
in our group to get a clearance. And the FBI actually did interview
everyone including childhood friends and neighbors and even former
neighbors. Two folks got rejected. One was because a parent was a
foreign national and the other was because of a friend.

Ask yourself if it is unreasonable to make that statement since one of
Obamas parents is a foreign national and he is known to have associated
with some questionable folks like going to the church of the extreme
anti American preacher for twenty years.

"cm" wrote in message
...
Geez. You and I could enjoy a drink and good conversation together.


Rum or beer in the summer. Single malt scotch any time (at least lunch). I
like Oban or Macallan but I'm not too picky.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Deteriorating infrastructure - The federal government has almost no role in
infastructure (interstate highways, some airports excepted). Falling bridges
are the responsibility of individual states.

FWIW, I have long suggested that the Fed Gas Tax be rolled back to
just enough to cover research on safety and road builing methods and
materials. Then the states could increase their gas tax by an amount
decided by the Legislature to cover THEIR needs. More efficient since
you don't take money off the top to run the bureaucacy, lets the states
decide their own priorities, does away with one of the bigger pork
barrels (which of course is why it won't ever get done.)


Further, the only reasonable claim of recent BOR violations stems from
intercepting communications without a warrant. The first wire-tapping that
ever took place occurred during the Second War of Independence when both the
Union and the Confederacy tapped the opposition's telegraph lines. To not do
so is to subscribe to Henry Stimpson's 1929 dictum: "Gentelmen don't read
other gentelmen's mail" as he shut down the State Department's cryptanalytic
office.

Even that is most likely not a violation as long as the tapped phone
or intercepted communication device is overseas. The courts have long
noted that if the tap is legal, then any conversations recorded thereby
are legal no matter who the tapee is talking to. With in the US, for
example, if Goombah #1 has a tap on the phone and Goombah #2 calls G1
and talks at length about nefarious activity, then G2 can be arrested,
tried and convicted on the basis of the tap on G1's phone. Even though
there was no tap authorized on the phone of G2.
There is no law at all that stops taps on OVERSEAS phones, so they
are legal (or at least not illegal and thus not the fruit of the
poisonous tree). If the tap is on a communications device in Afghan and
someone from the US calls that device, the tap is still legal and the US
person is like G2 above.

clipped


Ask yourself if it is unreasonable to make that statement since one of
Obamas parents is a foreign national and he is known to have
associated with some questionable folks like going to the church of
the extreme anti American preacher for twenty years.

Is that opinion based on one sermon? Got evidence that he is
"anti-American"? A preacher preaching fire and brimstone is not
anti-American if he is basing his sermon on sin (killing), IMO. Don't
go for that style myself, but have heard plenty of fiery sermons that
really prompted people to reflect. From the perspective of older
African Americans, America has been an awful place ... no housing
available, no
voting, trashy schools, etc. Being angry about our past doesn't make
one anti-American. Ever been beaten up by a cop? I'm caucasian, but
I've encountered some cops who were not "nice" and who lied on the
record........only takes once to strike terror in one's heart.

Chris wrote in :

Jim Yanik wrote:
Chris wrote in :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far
left socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
continue the failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people,
spend on social programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.
Separate the nation with two sets of laws, one set of laws for the
powerful and the other set of laws for the proletariat.

More party talking points? Why am I not surprised? Even McCain stopped
using this .... (four letter word here). You didn't get the memo,
obviously.

These are NOT "party talking points".
that's just Alinsky 101,straight out of Rules for Radicals.



Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a "flawed
document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by the
Constitution",

do you have a quote or reference?

try http://tinyurl.com/5u7xpx

excerpt;
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the U.S.
Constitution as having “deep flaws” during a September 2001 Chicago public
radio program, adding that the country’s Founding Fathers had “an enormous
blind spot” when they wrote it.

Obama also remarked that the Constitution “reflected the fundamental flaw
of this country that continues to this day.”

Obama’s statements came during a panel discussion that aired on Chicago’s
WBEZ-FM on Sept. 6, 2001, titled “Slavery and the Constitution.”

and;
http://tinyurl.com/5f8cc9

And BTW I'm not going to fall for the
obvious answer that comes to mind ( Which would be: "It's the GOP that
made quick work of the Constitution, habeas corpus, torture, no legal
defense etc..."




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
The political parties accurately reflect the views of their membership. If
you want them to change, get active in the party of your choice and become
an advocate.

They accurately reflect the views of the MOST active part of their
membership. Of course, that still means you have to get involved.


You beat me to it. As a North Carolina resident, I removed myself from the
Republican Party roles this year to become an independent. That freed me up to
choose which primary election I wanted to vote. By the time NC has its primary,
the Republican frontrunner is long chosen, so voting in the Republican primary
is an exercise in futility. It was the Democratic primary that provided me with
a choice. I voted for Hillary because she appeared most likely to lose in NC.
I wanted the most divisive candidate to win for the Democrats. I thought the
longer the Democrats remained divided, the easier they'd be to defeat.

America has demonstrated that she is sick of the current situation. The
Republicans had the power and ****ed it away. I fully expect the Democrats to
do the same. Many in Congress are there only to serve themselves. I'd strongly
support term limits to do away with the professional politician as a career
choice. Didn't the Republicans have some sort of term limit included in their
"contract with America"? I seem to recall my local congresscritter Sue Myrick
signed the contract. Of course, she continues to run in every election. I
guess she didn't mean "her".

I look forward to seeing what can be done by a new administration in righting
the nation. I hope they don't **** it up but I don't hold all that much hope.
And I hope the campaign rhetoric about Obama turns out to be just that:
rhetoric. We'll see.

If the Democrats pile on and push through a bunch of very divisive stuff, look
to see yet another cleaning out of incumbents in 4 years.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

wrote in message
news
I didn't vote for Obama, but I'm very hopeful that he works
out. We need to do much better than we have on so many fronts. Maybe
he's the answer, and maybe he's a dud. We really don't know yet.Not
even his biggest supporters know that yet. Lets give him a little
breathing room to show us what he can do before we decide to bury him.


I didn't vote for Kay Hagen (our new senator in NC) but I hope she does
something for us. I wrote Elizabeth Dole on several occasions concerning things
like gay marriage and flag burning constitutional amendments (don't they have
anything IMPORTANT to do?) and said at the time I was concerned for the future
of the party if they continued down their current path. Well, they carried on
and got tossed out on their collective ass in this state for it. Do you suppose
they noticed?

Elizabeth Dole ran a very negative campaign in the style of Jesse Helms (may he
roast in Hell). In fact, her "godless" TV ad is credited with losing the
campaign for her. That, and the fact she accomplished nothing in her 6 years in
the Senate. She was good for 2nd Amendment support and that was about it.

I ramble on....



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob F ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:18 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: I cried...
Subject: {OT} I cried...


"Chris" wrote in message ...
badgolferman wrote:
Chris wrote:

badgolferman wrote:
wrote:

Now we have hope that our new President, governing
from the center, will nominate centrist Justices who
don't cynically interpret the Constitution for the
benefit of religious fanatics, corporate thieves
and anti-environmental hatchetmen.
I think you have been drinking the MoveOn kool-aid too much. Obama
is the most socialist senator in the Congress and his policies have
reflected such. If you're happy that's great but I will be even
happier when you share your wealth with me because I certainly will
need it when there are no more jobs to go around and energy costs
skyrocket. Let us know if you're still happy in two years.

Promised, I will. Until then, how about you start using your own
brains? Try it, thinking on your own is a wonderful feeling, better
than sex.


Using your own brains please tell me how you envision President Obama
and Pelosi/Reid making the world and especially America a better
place.
If possible piggyback on the points made by original poster or just
raise your own.

I can't divine the future, so I don't know if the world will be a
better place
two years from now or not, but I am not going to say it won't just
because of
my political conviction. Are you?

Besides, PE Obama has said repeatedly that it's not just up to him but
also
and mainly up to us to make our future better. Can we stop repeating
political
talking point from either party and start working on solutions? I am
ready.
-------------------------------

More than half of this country is ready. They made that clear. I don't
have much hope for the bitter old men here though.

--------------------------------

Could it be.....
the 'other half' of this fine country are not frosted-over, jazzed-up,
sheep, hopping after the new Robin Hood 'Shepard' for promised Free
pastures (grown, cared for and owned by others)??

Spread your own 'wealth'....

Norminn wrote:
clipped


Ask yourself if it is unreasonable to make that statement since one of
Obamas parents is a foreign national and he is known to have
associated with some questionable folks like going to the church of
the extreme anti American preacher for twenty years.

Is that opinion based on one sermon? Got evidence that he is
"anti-American"? A preacher preaching fire and brimstone is not
anti-American if he is basing his sermon on sin (killing), IMO. Don't
go for that style myself, but have heard plenty of fiery sermons that
really prompted people to reflect. From the perspective of older
African Americans, America has been an awful place ... no housing
available, no
voting, trashy schools, etc. Being angry about our past doesn't make
one anti-American. Ever been beaten up by a cop? I'm caucasian, but
I've encountered some cops who were not "nice" and who lied on the
record........only takes once to strike terror in one's heart.

Can't say but my point is that if someone doesn't understand the
clearance process they shouldn't be calling others "idiots" . And
considering the part you snipped for some reason it is valid to remark
that Obama may not be able to obtain a security clearance by normal
means considering the folks he associates with and the foreign national
status of his parent.

badgolferman wrote:

Chris wrote:



badgolferman wrote:


wrote:



Now we have hope that our new President, governing


from the center, will nominate centrist Justices who


don't cynically interpret the Constitution for the
benefit of religious fanatics, corporate thieves
and anti-environmental hatchetmen.


I think you have been drinking the MoveOn kool-aid too much. Obama
is the most socialist senator in the Congress and his policies have
reflected such. If you're happy that's great but I will be even
happier when you share your wealth with me because I certainly will
need it when there are no more jobs to go around and energy costs
skyrocket. Let us know if you're still happy in two years.



Promised, I will. Until then, how about you start using your own
brains? Try it, thinking on your own is a wonderful feeling, better
than sex.




Using your own brains please tell me how you envision President Obama
and Pelosi/Reid making the world and especially America a better place.
If possible piggyback on the points made by original poster or just
raise your own.



Much of the world sees us very differently than we see ourselves, in the
vein of war in Iraq
for oil (democracy)...........all the tripe about "evil empires" ignores
the fact that much of their
population does not support the evil leader. In that regard, it pays to
"talk to the enemy" and
bring to light the bad guys policies/actions. We had outpouring of
support after 9/11, but lost
a good deal of it because of Iraq. It pays to have friends, just as if
the bully down the block
is picking on the kids - going it alone sometimes just doesn't work.
Have our own suspect
elections, while we "police" elections in other countries is a good
example of how to lose
friends. Don't forget, we were for Saddam Hussein before we were
against him; repeat
ad nauseum for many other countries. Pakistan is another example, with
leader trying
to support us but in a very perilous position with his own nuke-powered
countrymen.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Yanik ]
Posted At: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 6:44 PM
Posted To: alt.home.repair
Conversation: I cried...
Subject: I cried...

Chris wrote in :

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far
left socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely
continue the failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people,
spend on social programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.
Separate the nation with two sets of laws, one set of laws for the
powerful and the other set of laws for the proletariat.

More party talking points? Why am I not surprised? Even McCain stopped
using this .... (four letter word here). You didn't get the memo,
obviously.

These are NOT "party talking points".
that's just Alinsky 101,straight out of Rules for Radicals.



Obama has said publicly that he considers the Constitution a "flawed
document",and wants to install judges "not constrained by the
Constitution",instead basing judgments on popular opinion and
feelings,instead of Written Law. He would put judges OUTSIDE the Supreme
Law of the land. Our rights will mean nothing.

IOW,he wants to render the Constitution useless.
To me,that is the destruction of the United States of America.
----------------------------------

Change.....
Right off the bat, let's see if he permanently 'revises' the U.S.A. flag
tail logo on official government transportation (with the 'Obama
version' of the U.S. flag he plastered on his campaign airplane).

Let's see if he mocks the country by not saluting our flag at official
functions.

Let's see if Al-Quida ceases their bombing and attack planning
(especially on our soil).

Let's see foreign aid coming TO our country instead of OUT OF IT.
[Remember: Put America First]

Let's see all of the Obama voters roll up their sleeves, do volunteer
work, focus on cleaning up their own communities of problems (besides
drugs, crime and killing)...instead of waiting for $$ from the
government to somehow 'do it' for them. I don't think it will happen.
Why? Because I don't think they have the intention(or the balls)to help
themselves.

Prove me wrong.

On Nov 5, 9:29*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
I cried also. Because the nation I love so much just elected a far left
socialist who may not even be a US citizen. Who will likely continue the
failed policies of the Clinton Regime. Tax the people, spend on social
programs. Encourage immorality and perversion.

Do you really care what consenting adults do in private? My God, man,
get a grip. It's none of your business.

Cindy Hamilton