In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Republicans have NOT blocked ANY tax bill.

There has not BEEN a tax bill. Not one with committee hearings, not one for
mark-up, not one for floor debate, not one open for amendments. No tax bill
on the Bush tax cuts, no tax bill on capital gains, no tax bill on the AMT,
no tax bill on the inheritance tax. Zippo.
The tax bills have largely followed the pre-end around Healthcare
bill. The GOP was setting up to fight the bills but never got the chance
because the Dems couldn't agree on anything. Same here with many Blue
Dogs (and those who are getting religion a little late) wanting ALL cuts
extended while the leadership and Mr. O want something different. So far
nothing has been actually advanced so the GOP hasn't had to block
anything. The Dems are doing a good enough job of that on their own.



The authority for moving tax bills rests exclusively with the majority
party. So far, the Democrats have done nothing in this regard.

There HAS been posturing on both sides - sort of preparing the battle-space.
But as far as action, either in favor or in opposition, nothing.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"CK Lumbernickle" wrote:

Since the vote was passed without objection and there was no
recorded vote, you know that how? If he had objected, under House rules,
they would have then taken an actual vote. The no recorded vote was the
reason that I was interested in the committee votes to see how he voted
there. Did you have any luck finding those.

You're asking me how, and yet _you_ claim he voted for it. LOL, it isn't
luck. Hint: Try Google Books.
I said the vote was by acclimation in the House. He did not vote
against since no one did. I also stated originally, since lost, that I
was interested in knowing how he voted in the Committee since that was
where a vote would have been recorded.



Let's take the hypothetical road for which you want to walk. _If_ Franks
did vote for it, you want Bush off the hook. So, you must be willing to let
any Democratic POTUS off the hook, if one Republican voted their way. Is
this really the road you want to travel? I didn't think so!
I don';t want Bush off the hook. I just want the Dems to take their
share of the blame. They went along with it wholeheartedly thinking it
was a good thing because they did not object to the votes by acclamation
in both Houses. It is disingenuous at best to suggest that this was
anything other than a bipartisan cluster****, assuming it really is the
source of all Evil.


Democrats do things I don't exactly agree with, but we'll save those for
the political forums. Think the Home Repair readers are about fed up with
our nonsense.
We'll have to agree that you are completely and utterly wrong... er
I mean agree to disagree (G&D&R).

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:39:45 -0500, "HeyBub" wrote:

DGDevin wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure which planet you inhabit. But, where I am, the Dems have
spent several trillion dollars, and enacted all manner of legislation
that really killed the economy.


The federal debt doubled under Bush 43, the CBO said a couple of
years ago that the cost of the war in Iraq would be well over two
trillion once the interest on that debt was paid. Can you quote
yourself vigorously protesting that deficit spending at the time?

What's Obummer care and the various stimuli going to cost by the time interest
is added?

Oh, and in case you missed it, the economy crashed when that Bush
fella was still in charge, and the signs of what was coming had been
apparent (at least to some people) for quite some time. Your
depiction that it all happened only when the Dems took over is
delusion.

The Dems took over Congress in January 2006.

January 2007.

On Oct 28, 4:30*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Country wrote:

Carter *was elected by that time's teaparty. The teaparty of today
picks candidates that are even worse. But I guess as long as the talk
a good game and gang up on liberal women and step on her head...

Carter was elected as a moral rebuke to Nixon.

As for stepping on a liberal woman's head, *no one wants to touch that stuff
with their hands.


I guess they thought they were being real Men by ganging up on a
smaller woman because they didn't like her view. Real Americans, too,
eh?

On Oct 28, 4:13*pm, "JimT" wrote:
"Country" wrote in message

...
On Oct 28, 11:04 am, "JimT" wrote:



"DGDevin" wrote in message

om...

"JimT" wrote in message
tnet...

You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop top
posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

Just curious, you boys are able to argue your case pretty good so why
take this debate into the personal insult flame war? You don't seem to
need it and it takes away from your better points.

Country

===

I wasn't trying to impress you.

Jim


But why? I'm... I'm so impressionable.

JimT wrote the following:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Fred" wrote in message
...

Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had
a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until
right at
the end.

when the shoe shine boy took over the captains seat.

It's nice when genetic bottlenecks like you announce themselves in
plain language, usually you cross-burner types try to conceal your
true nature if you can.

He's a Squidbilly.

Jim
You watch that show too? :-)

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it means
there is no country left to govern.

Hardly "ANYTHING". You would be pressed to point to Republicans being
accused of a single instance of:

* Illegal voter registration (i.e. Acorn)
* False absentee ballot requests or submissions (2 Dems arrested this week
in Florida)
* Voter intimidation at the polling place (New Black Panther folks in
Philly)
* Delay or outright denial of military absentee ballots (The entire state of
Illinois)

Liberals tend to support the notion that "the end justifies the means."
What's a relatively minor incident of ballot security when the greater good
of electing the proper candidate is in the balance?

Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act."

Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Bob F" wrote

I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious
result. That or revolution.

As a Libertarian, I vote for revolution. Armed revolt. Ballot box
tampering already in Nevada and other states for the Dems. It's not
only time to vote the *******s out, it's time to punish them.

Another vote for Republicorp. I hope you enjoy corporate rule.

Okay, I'll play.

Would you rather be governed by the Board of Directors of Taco Bell (YUM)*
or continue with the current administration?

----
* For a list of the board members of YUM, see
http://www.yum.com/company/bod.asp

Vic Smith wrote:

We are at the beginning of the manufacturing society being replaced
by the information and service society.

The largest employer in the U.S. is Walmart, and they manufacture
nothing. They leave the production of goods to those who can do them
best.


Right. Talk about romantic. Those tired old arguments about American
society's evolution to a "service" economy lead us exactly where we
are - rampant unemployment, soon-to-be second nation status to commie
China.
So they are true in that respect.
All the societies you mentioned except the current American society
involved sweat and hard work by a significant portion of the
population in the production of goods.
Like I said, look around you.
You think all that "stuff" was magically created?
Those who create the "stuff" call the shots.
They own the world. Always have.
And have Americans thinking that Walmart jobs are just great.
Believe what you want.
Just be aware that Walmart probably leads every state with employees
on the Medicaid and food stamps rolls.
Not something I ever aspired to, and not nearly enough slots at
Walmart to provide the masses with jobs.
Hard to fathom how anybody can hold Walmart up as the exemplar of the
"New American service economy."
Bet those Walmart employees provide a lot of work for other service
sector workers, what with all the money they make to spend on
services.

Anyway, I been making my argument for decades without much success.
So your resistance doesn't surprise me.
Many others who said what you do came around though.
Usually right after their job got outsourced overseas.
No reason to think how I do if you're working and making a good buck.
Well, maybe if your grown kids or other family needs your
"assistance," then you might think about it.
That's happening to some.
Don't know for sure if my argument is correct, but so far my
predictions have come true.
Maybe it's not as bad as I think.
I'm just grateful I made and saved my money when "times were good."
Thank the Lord for luck is what I say.


I appreciate your romantic notion that making "stuff" is the secure way to a
thriving civilization.

If you had asked a 1910 New Yorker about the future transportation problems
when the population of the city reached eight million, he would probably
have asked: "Where will we get enough horses and what will we do with all
the horse ****?"

The fact remains that others can make "stuff" cheaper than we and attempts
to reverse that trend are doomed. And we should not try because it can't be
done.

We should do, instead, what we do better than the rest of the world.

Tabasco sauce comes to mind.

Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have. It's the spending that
unbalances the budget.

As for medical care changes saving anything, there's a one-word answer:
Giggle.

Saving money in health care should NOT be the goal. Better care and greater
access should be the goals, period. There are those that think these goals
can be more closely reached by reducing cost - but they have not proved that
case. Further, these same folks hold that the recent health care makeover
will reduce costs - but they haven't proved that either.

What we DO know about the new health care law comes out in dribbles and
drabs. Like this week, for instance, a new regulation that Healthcare
Savings Accounts can no longer be used to buy over-the-counter drugs. So, if
you have arthritis that can be alleviated by Alleve or an allergy that can
be managed by Benadryl, you'll have to pay out-of-pocket.

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



That's an interesting point about Iraq. Remember how all that oil
revenue was going to make the war as cheap as a trip to Wendy's? And
the war was going to be over in 6-8 months, according to the lunatic
Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld a lunatic?

Yes.


The Iraq War started March 20th, 2003. Bush announced "Mission
Accomplished" on May 1st of that year. (There was even a banner on the
ship - seeing is believing.).

I find it really disturbing that someone as stupid as you was given a badge,
a uniform, weapons and probably a vehicle, using public money.

By the way, Bush apologized for that stupid "Mission Accomplished" sign. You
missed the VIDEO in which he apologized for that, and some of the bar talk
he was fond of using to appeal to things like you.


I agree that Rumsfeld was wrong. The war from start to "Mission
Accomplished" was less than two months.

You need to discover HISTORY BOOKS, and have someone read them to you.


As for oil being cheep, these things take time. The full provisions of
Obamacare don't kick in until 2014 - same with the oil.

Just give it more time. Maybe a bail-out for the oil industry would help?

Maybe putting a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger would help. Do it
up against a tree so nobody has to waste time painting a wall in your house.

CK Lumbernickle wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Well, during the GWB time, we had about 5% unemployment. I believe
that the spike in unemployment was due to the BHO tax increases,
reckless spending, and many new regulations and other unfunded
mandates.

Actually, taxes on business are lower than ever.

You had better get facts b/4 claiming percentage on unemployment.
Start here.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...o l=%22EaG%22


The chart you reference, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows
unemployment during the first six years of the Bush administration averaging
about 5%.

Starting in January of '08, unemployment went up like a rocket! How does
that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly
obvious, isn't it?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
DGDevin wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...

I'm not sure which planet you inhabit. But, where I am, the Dems have
spent several trillion dollars, and enacted all manner of legislation
that really killed the economy.


The federal debt doubled under Bush 43, the CBO said a couple of
years ago that the cost of the war in Iraq would be well over two
trillion once the interest on that debt was paid. Can you quote
yourself vigorously protesting that deficit spending at the time?

Oh, and in case you missed it, the economy crashed when that Bush
fella was still in charge, and the signs of what was coming had been
apparent (at least to some people) for quite some time. Your
depiction that it all happened only when the Dems took over is
delusion.

The Dems took over Congress in January 2006.


Ask your left foot when the war began, and read about how badly it was
planned. Hire a private detective to help you find your public library, you
ignorant old fool.

"willshak" wrote in message
m...
Bob F wrote the following:
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.


We're smart enough to know that many years of repubs trashing the
American economy can't be undone in 2 years. At least it isn't going bad
anywhere near like it was when Bush left office.

The reason the mechanic laid off his son probably had nothing to do with
any political party.
The owner's son was probably the least productive employee, as many are
who are related to the employer.



Or, it would've crushed the morale of the rest of the staff if he fired one
of them instead of his son. Smart move to fire the son, assuming his other
people were equally productive or more so.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

Who figured the feds shouldn't need a court order to listen to your
phone calls or read your e-mails?

Governments have been monitoring enemy electronic communications since
the Recent Unplesantness when both Union and Confederate forces tapped
the telegraph lines of their opposition. Early on, we broke the Japanese
"Purple Code," and the British did the same with the "Enigma" project on
German codes.

Those who dismiss this project harken back to the day when the Secretary
of State said: "Gentelmen do not read each others mail" as he closed the
State Department's codebreaking office.

What part of the difference between "enemy" and "American citizen" is too
complicated for you?

The way it used to work was if the cops wanted to tap your phone or read
your mail they had to convince a judge to sign off on it. There was even
a special court where they could go if it was a national security issue
that couldn't be discussed in open court. Now, they just send your ISP a
Security Letter and the ISP rolls over, no need to wake up a judge and
explain why they want to spy on a citizen on his native soil. And you
figure that's a good thing?


You're talking to a retired cop. You know that, right? Don't be surprised
that he has no respect for the law. It's a requirement for the job.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
CK Lumbernickle wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Well, during the GWB time, we had about 5% unemployment. I believe
that the spike in unemployment was due to the BHO tax increases,
reckless spending, and many new regulations and other unfunded
mandates.

Actually, taxes on business are lower than ever.

You had better get facts b/4 claiming percentage on unemployment.
Start here.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/Surv...o l=%22EaG%22


The chart you reference, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows
unemployment during the first six years of the Bush administration
averaging about 5%.

Starting in January of '08, unemployment went up like a rocket! How does
that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly
obvious, isn't it?

Your childish behavior is similar to Oren's. Somehow you think name calling
makes you a 4th grader, instead of a 3rd grader.

What part of the chart are you having difficulty with? The part of Jan
2001, when Clinton handed the Bush administration a 4.2% unemployment? Or,
the part of Jan 2009, when Bush handed the Obama administration a
staggering almost 8% unemployment?

If you're implying the Democratic Party is responsible for the huge jump.
Maybe you'd like to share what bills were signed by Bush, which they
passed. List them here =================

"willshak" wrote in message
m...
JimT wrote the following:

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...


"Fred" wrote in message
...

Good point. During the first six years of the Bush administration
unemployment averaged 5%, the stock market topped 14,000, there were
24 consecutive months of economic growth. All this in spite of two
wars, Katrina, and 9/11.

By that logic, an airliner that crashed when it came in for landing
had
a pretty good flight considering that nothing went wrong until right
at
the end.

when the shoe shine boy took over the captains seat.

It's nice when genetic bottlenecks like you announce themselves in plain
language, usually you cross-burner types try to conceal your true nature
if you can.

He's a Squidbilly.

Jim
You watch that show too? :-)


Started watching about 3 months ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eba05O-K39M

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Steve B wrote:
"Bob F" wrote

I hope you enjoy Repulicorp. Corporate rule will be the obvvious
result. That or revolution.

As a Libertarian, I vote for revolution. Armed revolt. Ballot box
tampering already in Nevada and other states for the Dems. It's not
only time to vote the *******s out, it's time to punish them.

Another vote for Republicorp. I hope you enjoy corporate rule.

Okay, I'll play.

Would you rather be governed by the Board of Directors of Taco Bell
(YUM)* or continue with the current administration?

The current administration without any doubt.

HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it
means there is no country left to govern.

Hardly "ANYTHING". You would be pressed to point to Republicans being
accused of a single instance of:

* Illegal voter registration (i.e. Acorn)
* False absentee ballot requests or submissions (2 Dems arrested this
week in Florida)
* Voter intimidation at the polling place (New Black Panther folks in
Philly)
* Delay or outright denial of military absentee ballots (The entire
state of Illinois)

Liberals tend to support the notion that "the end justifies the
means." What's a relatively minor incident of ballot security when
the greater good of electing the proper candidate is in the balance?

Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act."

That is laughable.

HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to
the same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier
constituents have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might
help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Fact. They never have. It's a fantasy.

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it
means there is no country left to govern.

Hardly "ANYTHING". You would be pressed to point to Republicans being
accused of a single instance of:

* Illegal voter registration (i.e. Acorn)
* False absentee ballot requests or submissions (2 Dems arrested this
week in Florida)
* Voter intimidation at the polling place (New Black Panther folks in
Philly)
* Delay or outright denial of military absentee ballots (The entire
state of Illinois)

Liberals tend to support the notion that "the end justifies the
means." What's a relatively minor incident of ballot security when
the greater good of electing the proper candidate is in the balance?

Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act."

That is laughable.


He's talking about imaginary conservatives. Here are some real ones from
recent history, with info about their research into immoral acts:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...g?t=1288320974

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to post
properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop
top posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are not
Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/

Jim

Mormons identify and infidels as Gentiles, the same name used by the Jews to
describe non believers. In the Book Of Mormon, they are given permission to
run "like lions among lambs" when dealing with non members in all matters,
legal, moral,philosophical, or financial. There is no penalty for screwing
a non Mormon.

Steve

"Jeff Thies" wrote in message
...
On 10/28/2010 1:14 PM, JimT wrote:

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"DGDevin" wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to
post properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop
top posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are
not Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/


I wonder whether Christians are Christian. All this talk about Jesus and
then doing very un Jesus things. Am I not mistaken that Jesus loved the
same people that the Christian Right despises? I don't see any of that
turn the other cheek or do unto others stuff either. It looks to me that
once you hang all your sins on Jesus you are free to do as you please.
Jesus, what a concept!

Jeff



Jim

If you had read the fine print, or studied a little deeper, you would know
that is not true. But I am not going to engage in a ****ing contest with
you. It's for you to learn for yourself, should you care to do so.

Steve

"JimT" wrote in message
net...

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
I've found that the "Mormons aren't Christians" crowd. Either are
Ex-Mormons with grudges. Or, are people in other churches who are
defending their own beliefs.

--


Are there any specific passages in the "Book of Mormon" that outright
contradict the "New Testament"?

Jim

Most of them.

Let's start with the people being instructed to leave Jerusalem because it
was to be destroyed. They were instructed to go east (to China) and build
boats and sail east to the New World. After they got to the New World, they
established a new civilization where people numbered "as the grains of sand
on the beach". This should have been the predecessors of the American
Indians. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus came and preached to them during the
three days between the time he died and reappeared on earth.

Trouble is, when genetic studies were done of 350 North/South American
tribes, the result were 95% Siberian/Mongolian descent, and 5%
European/African. There were no descendents with DNA that linked to the
middle east where these refugees were to have come from.

You have the Book Of Mormon paraphrased in the previous two paragraphs.
The rest is plagiarized Bible, with bible verses quoted in entirety or in
context or in essence.

After the American Indians challenged the Book of Mormon, Mormons claimed
that God had the ability to alter all the DNA evidence, and did so. Very
interesting study on the modern DNA studies of the origin of the American
continents indigenous populations.

The Jewish community has also had run ins with the Mormons who were
baptizing the dead from the holocaust in proxy (google that), and have
several times asked them to stop, with little results, but who knows what
goes on behind those temple walls. Baptism for the dead is a ceremony where
a dead person is allowed to be brought into heaven by having a living Mormon
proxy baptized in their sacred temple, and brought out of Purgatory, or
whatever holding pen, and into heaven if they accept the Book of Mormon and
Joseph Smith. Of course, they are brought into the Mormon faith, and not
Judaism.

Mormons also believe that women cannot get into heaven on their own, but
have to be brought through a curtain by their husbands with a secret name
that was given to them during their temple sealing for time and eternity
sealing.
Women in Mormon culture are one step above a cow.

Plus, there has been not one shard of pot, or arrowhead, or archaeological
proof that these New World people ever populated the New World, yet they
were "as numerous as grains of sand on the beach" and had extensive cities
and trade routes.

It's like Christianity. You just have to take it on faith, but at least
Christians have SOME archaeological proof.

It's all a reach, except in some cases, it is an extreme stretch.

Steve

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


What we DO know about the new health care law comes out in dribbles and
drabs. Like this week, for instance, a new regulation that Healthcare
Savings Accounts can no longer be used to buy over-the-counter drugs. So, if
you have arthritis that can be alleviated by Alleve or an allergy that can
be managed by Benadryl, you'll have to pay out-of-pocket.

OR get a prescription from you doctor, buy the stuff out of pocket, and
then reimburse yourself.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it
means there is no country left to govern.

Hardly "ANYTHING". You would be pressed to point to Republicans being
accused of a single instance of:

* Illegal voter registration (i.e. Acorn)
* False absentee ballot requests or submissions (2 Dems arrested this
week in Florida)
* Voter intimidation at the polling place (New Black Panther folks in
Philly)
* Delay or outright denial of military absentee ballots (The entire
state of Illinois)

Liberals tend to support the notion that "the end justifies the
means." What's a relatively minor incident of ballot security when
the greater good of electing the proper candidate is in the balance?

Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act."

That is laughable.


He's talking about imaginary conservatives. Here are some real ones from
recent history, with info about their research into immoral acts:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ypocrites.jpg?
t=1288320974

While mildly scandalous and disturbing in a social conscious kind of
way, it is breathtakingly off the topic at hand. Sorta interesting that
in a discussion of ballot box stuffing, illegal voter registration, and
intimidation, your best response is this???

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"Bob F" wrote in message
...
HeyBub wrote:
wrote:


The American Republicans are like the Canadian Liberals.
They truly believe they are pre-destined to govern, come hell or high
water - and will do ANYTHING to make that come true - even if it
means there is no country left to govern.

Hardly "ANYTHING". You would be pressed to point to Republicans being
accused of a single instance of:

* Illegal voter registration (i.e. Acorn)
* False absentee ballot requests or submissions (2 Dems arrested this
week in Florida)
* Voter intimidation at the polling place (New Black Panther folks in
Philly)
* Delay or outright denial of military absentee ballots (The entire
state of Illinois)

Liberals tend to support the notion that "the end justifies the
means." What's a relatively minor incident of ballot security when
the greater good of electing the proper candidate is in the balance?

Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act."

That is laughable.


He's talking about imaginary conservatives. Here are some real ones from
recent history, with info about their research into immoral acts:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c1...ypocrites.jpg?
t=1288320974

While mildly scandalous and disturbing in a social conscious kind of
way, it is breathtakingly off the topic at hand. Sorta interesting that
in a discussion of ballot box stuffing, illegal voter registration, and
intimidation, your best response is this???



HeyBub the infant said this:
"Conservatives tend to cling to the idea that "no good can come from an
immoral act.""

That was a foolish statement which deserved to be noodled with.

May we please have the chapter and verse? I've been LDS / Mormon for
twenty years. I've never heard that taught. Especially the part about
"no pentaly for screwing a non Mormon".

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


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

Mormons identify and infidels as Gentiles, the same name used by the
Jews to
describe non believers. In the Book Of Mormon, they are given
permission to
run "like lions among lambs" when dealing with non members in all
matters,
legal, moral,philosophical, or financial. There is no penalty for
screwing
a non Mormon.

Steve

On Oct 26, 5:38*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Took my truck in for oil change, today. The mechanic said that
business is so slow. The economy is really awful.

"I laid off my son, today" he says. Doesn't have enough work to pay
him.

So, how are all you Democrats enjoying life, these days? Was this the
change you were hoping for? Anyone out there going to vote for more of
this change? I hope not.

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

Actually, our business is doing much better the past year. My 401k has
increased, too.

As I understand it, the folks leaving Jerusalem went west. But, I
could be mistaken. I've never really asked.

Evidence. Well, here's one of 10,600 hits on Google.
http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormo..._Mormon.htm l

As to women and cows, all the women I've met in the LDS church are
very well treated.

From what I've read of your posts, you, Steve, are a special type of
person, fondly called Ex-Mo. When a person leaves the LDS / Mormon
church, they tend to get bitter, and antagonistic. Which you display
rather nicely.

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


"Steve B" wrote in message
...

Let's start with the people being instructed to leave Jerusalem
because it
was to be destroyed. They were instructed to go east (to China) and
build
boats and sail east to the New World. After they got to the New
World, they
established a new civilization where people numbered "as the grains of
sand
on the beach". This should have been the predecessors of the American
Indians. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus came and preached to them
during the
three days between the time he died and reappeared on earth.

Trouble is, when genetic studies were done of 350 North/South American
tribes, the result were 95% Siberian/Mongolian descent, and 5%
European/African. There were no descendents with DNA that linked to
the
middle east where these refugees were to have come from.

You have the Book Of Mormon paraphrased in the previous two
paragraphs.
The rest is plagiarized Bible, with bible verses quoted in entirety or
in
context or in essence.

After the American Indians challenged the Book of Mormon, Mormons
claimed
that God had the ability to alter all the DNA evidence, and did so.
Very
interesting study on the modern DNA studies of the origin of the
American
continents indigenous populations.

The Jewish community has also had run ins with the Mormons who were
baptizing the dead from the holocaust in proxy (google that), and have
several times asked them to stop, with little results, but who knows
what
goes on behind those temple walls. Baptism for the dead is a ceremony
where
a dead person is allowed to be brought into heaven by having a living
Mormon
proxy baptized in their sacred temple, and brought out of Purgatory,
or
whatever holding pen, and into heaven if they accept the Book of
Mormon and
Joseph Smith. Of course, they are brought into the Mormon faith, and
not
Judaism.

Mormons also believe that women cannot get into heaven on their own,
but
have to be brought through a curtain by their husbands with a secret
name
that was given to them during their temple sealing for time and
eternity
sealing.
Women in Mormon culture are one step above a cow.

Plus, there has been not one shard of pot, or arrowhead, or
archaeological
proof that these New World people ever populated the New World, yet
they
were "as numerous as grains of sand on the beach" and had extensive
cities
and trade routes.

It's like Christianity. You just have to take it on faith, but at
least
Christians have SOME archaeological proof.

It's all a reach, except in some cases, it is an extreme stretch.

Steve

On 10/28/2010 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

No real economist believes tax cuts increase revenue. They may be
helpful in growing GDP, but never revenue.

What genius did you get that idea from anyways? There is any awful
lot of wishful thinking on talk radio. You know that there is no
requirement for accuracy since it is all opinion and not journalism. Not
a whole lot different than professional wrestling. Enjoy the show, just
don't be deceived that it is real.

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Thies wrote:

On
Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

Deficits occur when you spend more than you have. Period no matter the
party. Taking the tax cuts out of the equation, if you have a certain
amount of money coming in, and you know you are only going to have a
certain amount of money coming in, then you reduce your spending to that
level. Math 101.
The thing about tax cuts and the "cost" is the underlying
assumption that the government is some how entitled to a certain amount
of money. That is the most disingenuous part of the whole discussion to
my mind.
The government is only entitled to the amount of tax money that I
can legally avoid not sending under the current laws. Not one penny
more. The fact that the Congress (again pretty much independent of the
party with power over the purse strings) refuses to reign in spending to
that level is a shame on the electorate .

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke

On Oct 29, 5:42*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:
What we DO know about the new health care law comes out in dribbles and
drabs. Like this week, for instance, a new regulation that Healthcare
Savings Accounts can no longer be used to buy over-the-counter drugs. So, if
you have arthritis that can be alleviated by Alleve or an allergy that can
be managed by Benadryl, you'll have to pay out-of-pocket.

*OR get a prescription from you doctor, buy the stuff out of pocket, and
then reimburse yourself.

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
*---PJ O'Rourke


That's true on some things. My wife and I both take Omeprozole. She
has a prescription and with Medicare part D she pays about $3 bucks
for a months supply where I buy over the counter and pay about $15
bucks because I have no prescription insurance.

On 10/29/2010 2:08 AM, Steve B wrote:
"Jeff wrote in message
...
On 10/28/2010 1:14 PM, JimT wrote:

"Steve wrote in message
...

wrote in message
net...

wrote in message
m...
"JimT" wrote in message
net...


You are arguing economics with a guy that can't figure out how to
post properly.

Just sayin'

Jim

Or how to do much of anything else judging by most of his posts. I'm
waiting for the day when he asks for help tying his shoes.

He claims to be a Christian and several people have asked him to stop
top posting. I don't know why that surprises me.

Jim

If you know anything about religion, you would know that Mormons are
not Christians.

Steve


"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/r...al/christians/


I wonder whether Christians are Christian. All this talk about Jesus and
then doing very un Jesus things. Am I not mistaken that Jesus loved the
same people that the Christian Right despises? I don't see any of that
turn the other cheek or do unto others stuff either. It looks to me that
once you hang all your sins on Jesus you are free to do as you please.
Jesus, what a concept!

Jeff



Jim

If you had read the fine print, or studied a little deeper, you would know
that is not true.

Are we talking about Mormons? I'm confused here.

I know a number of Mormons, as well as Christian Conservatives, as
well as orthodox Jews.

It's my personal experience that Christian Conservatives are the most
bigoted group by far. Also the group most likely to engage in vengeance.
Whatever the theory of Christianity, in practice that is so. I don't see
that amongst the Mormons I know, and certainly not amongst the Jews.

Now, Mormonisms is complete hooey, as religions tend to be, but it is
not usually the theory but the culture of the religion that is
important. I have nothing against any culture, as long as it is not
actively suppressing others.

Jeff

On 10/29/2010 10:12 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 10/28/2010 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

No real economist believes tax cuts increase revenue. They may be
helpful in growing GDP, but never revenue.

What genius did you get that idea from anyways? There is any awful lot
of wishful thinking on talk radio. You know that there is no requirement
for accuracy since it is all opinion and not journalism. Not a whole lot
different than professional wrestling. Enjoy the show, just don't be
deceived that it is real.

Jeff

u must be a dumbocRAT.

On 10/29/2010 10:46 AM, Fred wrote:
On 10/29/2010 10:12 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 10/28/2010 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush tax
cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd propose
simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons subject to the
same laws, entitlements, and medical care that thier constituents
have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

No real economist believes tax cuts increase revenue. They may be
helpful in growing GDP, but never revenue.

What genius did you get that idea from anyways? There is any awful lot
of wishful thinking on talk radio. You know that there is no requirement
for accuracy since it is all opinion and not journalism. Not a whole lot
different than professional wrestling. Enjoy the show, just don't be
deceived that it is real.

Jeff

u must be a dumbocRAT.

So, shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

How not unusual.

Jeff

On 10/29/2010 10:22 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Jeff wrote:

On
Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget and 8
years later had more than doubled the deficit.

Deficits occur when you spend more than you have. Period no matter the
party. Taking the tax cuts out of the equation, if you have a certain
amount of money coming in, and you know you are only going to have a
certain amount of money coming in, then you reduce your spending to that
level. Math 101.
The thing about tax cuts and the "cost" is the underlying
assumption that the government is some how entitled to a certain amount
of money. That is the most disingenuous part of the whole discussion to
my mind.
The government is only entitled to the amount of tax money that I
can legally avoid not sending under the current laws. Not one penny
more. The fact that the Congress (again pretty much independent of the
party with power over the purse strings) refuses to reign in spending to
that level is a shame on the electorate .

I have nothing against cutting spending.

Here is the Fed Budget for 2010:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

I'd be interested in seeing where you would cut 800 billion from
discretionary spending. Feel free to elaborate.

Jeff

Jeff Thies wrote:
On 10/29/2010 10:46 AM, Fred wrote:
On 10/29/2010 10:12 AM, Jeff Thies wrote:
On 10/28/2010 8:37 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I'd propose a massive cut in Federal spending. Extend the Bush
tax cuts, and ashcan the Obama medical care take over. I'd
propose simplifying the tax code, and make all elected persons
subject to the same laws, entitlements, and medical care that
thier constituents have.

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of
the tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that
might help.

Tax cuts increase federal revenue. Always have.

Never have. Sure didn't under W where they took a balanced budget
and 8 years later had more than doubled the deficit.

No real economist believes tax cuts increase revenue. They may be
helpful in growing GDP, but never revenue.

What genius did you get that idea from anyways? There is any awful
lot of wishful thinking on talk radio. You know that there is no
requirement for accuracy since it is all opinion and not
journalism. Not a whole lot different than professional wrestling.
Enjoy the show, just don't be deceived that it is real.

Jeff

u must be a dumbocRAT.

So, shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

How not unusual.

He has no case, so he results to name calling. Seems to be the most popular form
of republican arguement on this forum.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" I think it's debatable
but the "Do undo others" thing still applies.

www.exmormon.org is interesting reading

Tax cuts have never helped balance the budget. The medical care
changes are going to save 2 trillion over 10 years. Since most of the
tax code is there to give tax favors to big business, that might help.
Yet another unreality. The single biggest "Tax expenditure", what
the Congress euphamistically calls deductions, is the tax loss related
to exclusion of employer paid health care premiums (which I would argue
is a not a favor to business because it is part of most people's pay).
The second is mortgage exemption for homes. Out of the top ten, only 1
(deferral of income from overseas operations) is related to business.
Out of top 50, only 7 go to businesses (and a lot of that is for R&D
activities and such).
Individuals get most of the money.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/spec.pdf
(around page 308 or so)

--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
---PJ O'Rourke