On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:26:01 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
harry wrote:

They are in third world countries expressly to avoid these things.
America also supports many corrupt, killer tyrant leaders so that
this regime will continue and rich republicans can make more money
also depriving Americans of jobs. Without bloodshed nothing will
change. But eventually the pigeons will come home to roost.

There is some traction to your observation that US companies locate
in places where they can avoid regulations and have lower employee
costs.

There is also a significant incentive to locate offshore to avoid
taxes. The US has the 2nd largest (soon to become THE largest)
corporate tax rate in the world - something in the neighborhood of
35%. If the US reduced its corporate tax rate to zero, we could make
a big dent in unemployment as companies moved production facilities
back home.

Things have changed, however. Republicans got elected. Whether this
will result in bloodshed is solely up to the unions.

Oh Jeez, now you're rewriting union history? I'm not particularly
fond of unions, but I am fond of the truth.

Just like the partisan donkey crap that either the D's or the R's are
solely responsible for all our ills, perhaps you've heard the
expression "it takes two to tango." The history of the labor
movement is riddled with murders of union workers, scabs, innocent
bystanders, Pinkertons, hired thugs, business owners and more.

Union organizers faced businessmen determined to keep unions out of
their businesses at all costs. No one who is writing in AHR today
really knows what work was like in the early industrial age. They
have no idea how many people died so they could have their paid
vacations, health bennies, lunch hours, work breaks, fair wages,
pensions, workmen's comp and more. They just take for granted those
conditions were always there. They were not.

A lot of people on every side of the issue died, at it wasn't all
"solely up to the unions." I'm sure you've enjoyed many of the
benefits that were brought about by the unions you're now (wrongly)
implying are the sole cause of labor violence. History says
otherwise.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History..._United_States

You make some good point, but that's almost all history. Worker's rights,
working conditions, hours, pay, safety rules, and the like have all been
settled. There are huge government agencies that enforce all these
regulations.

Those rights, like any other, need constant vigilance because they're under
constant attack. Every year since I started working my health benefits
became less and less valuable. My defined pension plan got converted to a
401K, I lost a week of vacation time and my disability/health/misc.
insurance covers less and costs more each year. When people get laid off,
others weren't hired to replace them; their work was split up among the
remaining group members, essentially a cut in pay. There probably isn't a
salaried employee here who hasn't gotten the feeling that they're working
more and getting less for it every year. There's no guarantee that the
benefits unions have won for *everyone* won't start getting peeled away one
by one. The evidence suggests quite clearly that's exactly what's
happening.

Employers have found thousands of loopholes in Federal work regulations.
The recent bus crash that killed 15 in NY led one transportation worker to
call the driver's logbook "the fairytale book" because employees are told
exactly what they need to write to keep the Feds happy and it has nothing to
do with reality. Employers hire rafts of temps to skillfully avoid paying
benefits. They hire independent contractors (that are in many cases really
full time employees, the IRS contends) as a further attempt to avoid paying
benefits and into FUTA, FICA, etc.

If business indeed runs in large, 100 year cycles as some suggest, it's time
for the wheel of fortune to turn and for us to see a resurgence in the idea
of unions. The Wisconsin walkout gave the issue enough time to gain legs of
its own. Rather than co-opting the process, the Democrats were using the
rules, just like Rep. Shelby of Alabama does with his holds on nominees, to
focus attention on a deal that was supposed to go down so quickly that no
one would notice. But they did. And now the heat is on.

One thing that remains of the union legacy is thuggery.

Was anyone murdered in Wisconsin? It's easy to preach union violence, but
if you look worldwide, it's once again businesses that are hiring thugs to
union bust. It's not the simplistic argument you're turning it into.

"Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) noted in a
recent statement that on average, a trade union leader is assassinated every
three days in Colombia, accounting for the vast majority of all trade
unionists killed worldwide. More than 80 percent of the casualties are
civilians, NUPGE said, with the extreme right-wing paramilitaries
responsible for 85 percent of the deaths and the army for another 10
percent."

http://peoplesworld.org/rural-union-...t-in-colombia/

The Wisconsin protest struck me as a mostly peaceful demonstration that
succeeded in focusing the nation's attention on the Republican's belief that
winning the midterms in the lower house was a mandate to bust unions,
dismantle Federal agencies and punish Democrats and their constituents
nationwide. We both know it was the very same stars that were in alignment
to get Clinton a second term.

Now, by seeming to "take control" the Republicans get to share in the blame
if anything goes really south before 2012. The funny thing is that when
watching the Sunday talk shows, it's clear that Republican commentators also
see this same "we have a mandate" folly playing out as it did with Clinton.
I see the right as nearly being forced into running two candidates: Right
and Super Far Right. Shades of Ross Perot. (-: The Tea Party will split
the Republican vote and Obama will cruise to a second term like Clinton did.

Republicans should remember that they really only have control over the
lower house of one branch of government and an occasional majority on the
Supreme Court. That's not carte blanche to strangle the Federal
government. I am betting once they do shrink the government, it will
deflate the overall recovery by throwing an estimated 700,000 people out of
work. There's extremely clear evidence the longer you're out of work, the
less likely you are to find a job - ever. Like the demise of GM, that's
something that's NOT good for us in the long run. But there seems to be
absolutely no business that shows an interest in long term planning of any
kind. It's just "what's our current stock price and how can we boost it?"



You make a few good points BUT - most of this is NOT LABOUR RELATED so
much as political in nature.
As long as you have two diametrically opposed and inflexible political
parties involved in every aspect of American life, you will have
conflict in every aspect of American life.

Can't put it much simpler than that.
Anything either labour or management says or does is seen through the
political lens and will offend (deeeply) one "party" or the other.

"HeyBub" wrote in message news:X4Sdndjbe5-
stuff snipped

Yep. But that's the nature of our legal and political system - it's
adversarial in nature. While raucous at times, it's far superior to
one-party or multi-party rule. Those who urge "bipartisanship" simply do
not
understand the job at hand.

Gack! Bipartisanship can also read "compromise and cooperation." Just
because it has become politically popular to play "my way or the highway"
doesn't it mean that it's always been that way or should be be that way.
Both sides usually have good points but there's never enough money or will
to implement them all. So compromises must be reached based on what either
sides values the most and is willing to give up something for.

Party line voting just ends up in gridlock but both parties have made it
clear they will punish those who seek to cross over to vote their
conscience, not their party. It's why we're in the middle of revenge
politics right now. The side that gets into power quickly seeks to undo the
work of their enemies and vice versa. Based on the polls I've seen, Gov.
Walker wasn't given a "mandate" to go union-busting and his actions could
result in his recall.

--
Bobby G.

On Mar 17, 2:24*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:26:01 -0400, "Robert Green"



wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
Robert Green wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
om...
harry wrote:

They are in third world countries expressly to avoid these things.
America also supports many corrupt, killer tyrant leaders so that
this regime will continue and rich republicans can make more money
also depriving Americans of jobs. Without bloodshed nothing will
change. But eventually the pigeons will come home to roost.

There is some traction to your observation that US companies locate
in places where they can avoid regulations and have lower employee
costs.

There is also a significant incentive to locate offshore to avoid
taxes. The US has the 2nd largest (soon to become THE largest)
corporate tax rate in the world - something in the neighborhood of
35%. If the US reduced its corporate tax rate to zero, we could make
a big dent in unemployment as companies moved production facilities
back home.

Things have changed, however. Republicans got elected. Whether this
will result in bloodshed is solely up to the unions.

Oh Jeez, now you're rewriting union history? *I'm not particularly
fond of unions, but I am fond of the truth.

Just like the partisan donkey crap that either the D's or the R's are
solely responsible for all our ills, perhaps you've heard the
expression "it takes two to tango." *The history of the labor
movement is riddled with murders of union workers, scabs, innocent
bystanders, Pinkertons, hired thugs, business owners and more.

Union organizers faced businessmen determined to keep unions out of
their businesses at all costs. *No one who is writing in AHR today
really knows what work was like in the early industrial age. *They
have no idea how many people died so they could have their paid
vacations, health bennies, lunch hours, work breaks, fair wages,
pensions, workmen's comp and more. *They just take for granted those
conditions were always there. *They were not.

A lot of people on every side of the issue died, at it wasn't all
"solely up to the unions." *I'm sure you've enjoyed many of the
benefits that were brought about by the unions you're now (wrongly)
implying are the sole cause of labor violence. *History says
otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...n_the_United_S...

You make some good point, but that's almost all history. Worker's rights,
working conditions, hours, pay, safety rules, and the like have all been
settled. There are huge government agencies that enforce all these
regulations.

Those rights, like any other, need constant vigilance because they're under
constant attack. *Every year since I started working my health benefits
became less and less valuable. *My defined pension plan got converted to a
401K, I lost a week of vacation time and my disability/health/misc.
insurance covers less and costs more each year. *When people get laid off,
others weren't hired to replace them; *their work was split up among the
remaining group members, essentially a cut in pay. *There probably isn't a
salaried employee here who hasn't gotten the feeling that they're working
more and getting less for it every year. *There's no guarantee that the
benefits unions have won for *everyone* won't start getting peeled away one
by one. *The evidence suggests quite clearly that's exactly what's
happening.

Employers have found thousands of loopholes in Federal work regulations.
The recent bus crash that killed 15 in NY led one transportation worker to
call the driver's logbook "the fairytale book" because employees are told
exactly what they need to write to keep the Feds happy and it has nothing to
do with reality. *Employers hire rafts of temps to skillfully avoid paying
benefits. *They hire independent contractors (that are in many cases really
full time employees, the IRS contends) as a further attempt to avoid paying
benefits and into FUTA, FICA, etc.

If business indeed runs in large, 100 year cycles as some suggest, it's time
for the wheel of fortune to turn and for us to see a resurgence in the idea
of unions. *The Wisconsin walkout gave the issue enough time to gain legs of
its own. *Rather than co-opting the process, the Democrats were using the
rules, just like Rep. Shelby of Alabama does with his holds on nominees, to
focus attention on a deal that was supposed to go down so quickly that no
one would notice. *But they did. *And now the heat is on.

One thing that remains of the union legacy is thuggery.

Was anyone murdered in Wisconsin? *It's easy to preach union violence, but
if you look worldwide, it's once again businesses that are hiring thugs to
union bust. *It's not the simplistic argument you're turning it into.

"Canada's National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) noted in a
recent statement that on average, a trade union leader is assassinated every
three days in Colombia, accounting for the vast majority of all trade
unionists killed worldwide. More than 80 percent of the casualties are
civilians, NUPGE said, with the extreme right-wing paramilitaries
responsible for 85 percent of the deaths and the army for another 10
percent."

http://peoplesworld.org/rural-union-...t-in-colombia/

The Wisconsin protest struck me as a mostly peaceful demonstration that
succeeded in focusing the nation's attention on the Republican's belief that
winning the midterms in the lower house was a mandate to bust unions,
dismantle Federal agencies and punish Democrats and their constituents
nationwide. *We both know it was the very same stars that were in alignment
to get Clinton a second term.

Now, by seeming to "take control" the Republicans get to share in the blame
if anything goes really south before 2012. *The funny thing is that when
watching the Sunday talk shows, it's clear that Republican commentators also
see this same "we have a mandate" folly playing out as it did with Clinton.
I see the right as nearly being forced into running two candidates: *Right
and Super Far Right. *Shades of Ross Perot. *(-: *The Tea Party will split
the Republican vote and Obama will cruise to a second term like Clinton did.

Republicans should remember that they really only have control over the
lower house of one branch of government and an occasional majority on the
Supreme Court. * That's not carte blanche to strangle the Federal
government. *I am betting once they do shrink the government, it will
deflate the overall recovery by throwing an estimated 700,000 people out of
work. *There's extremely clear evidence the longer you're out of work, the
less likely you are to find a job - ever. *Like the demise of GM, that's
something that's NOT good for us in the long run. *But there seems to be
absolutely no business that shows an interest in long term planning of any
kind. *It's just "what's our current stock price and how can we boost it?"

You make a few good points BUT - most of this is NOT LABOUR RELATED so
much as political in nature.
As long as you have two diametrically opposed and inflexible political
parties involved in every aspect of American life, you will have
conflict in every aspect of American life.

Can't put it much simpler than that.
Anything either labour or management says or does is seen through the
political lens and will offend (deeeply) one "party" or the other.

If you believe we have two diametrically opposed and inflexible
political parties running this country you must believe the rivalries
in the World Wrestling Federation or whatever they call themselves
now are real. Most arguments between different political parties are
meant for one thing....to polarize the public so they can wrangle
votes. Most do it by delivering the same message in one form or
another, "See those people over there....well your life sux and its
their fault."

Jimmie

Jimmie

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

c
Yep. But that's the nature of our legal and political system - it's
adversarial in nature. While raucous at times, it's far superior to
one-party or multi-party rule. Those who urge "bipartisanship" simply do not
understand the job at hand.

Most of truly heinous things done to the Country have been done on a
bipartisan nature. For example, all of the changes to the banking laws
that people point to as harbingers of the financial crisis were passed
with huge bipartisan majorities. Heck the Glass-Steagal repeal passed
the Senate on a voice vote.

--
"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

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 02:26:01 -0400, "Robert Green"

stuff snipped

Republicans should remember that they really only have control over the
lower house of one branch of government and an occasional majority on the
Supreme Court. That's not carte blanche to strangle the Federal
government. I am betting once they do shrink the government, it will
deflate the overall recovery by throwing an estimated 700,000 people out
of
work. There's extremely clear evidence the longer you're out of work,
the
less likely you are to find a job - ever. Like the demise of GM, that's
something that's NOT good for us in the long run. But there seems to be
absolutely no business that shows an interest in long term planning of
any
kind. It's just "what's our current stock price and how can we boost
it?"

You make a few good points BUT - most of this is NOT LABOUR RELATED so
much as political in nature.
As long as you have two diametrically opposed and inflexible political
parties involved in every aspect of American life, you will have
conflict in every aspect of American life.

Well, at least I got credit for a few points. That's better than I am doing
in other threads! (-:

How does Canada avoid what seems to be the inevitable total polarization of
a two party system? I believe the two party system works better than some
governments I've seen with a whole menagerie of different parties and
governments that seem to dissolve every other month. As you might have
seen, adding a third party (Tea) to the mix here in the US hasn't seemed to
calm the waters at all.

Conflict doesn't HAVE to be the only output of a two party system. Once
upon a time, we were able forge compromises and maintain some forward
motion.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Conflict doesn't HAVE to be the only output of a two party system. Once
upon a time, we were able forge compromises and maintain some forward
motion.

My theory (seriously) is that the demise of the patronage system at
the local level. At the time you had people active in the party for
their own enlightened self interest (a job). They tended to be less
ideological and more pragmatic since their very jobs depended on the
party staying in power. They also provided workers, etc. They also
worked at a leavening influence by disipating much of the power of the
ideologues. Now, the more fanatical people have a much more important
influence, especially at the party nominating level, and thus at all
levels.

--
"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:

My theory (seriously) is that the demise of the patronage system at
the local level. At the time you had people active in the party for
their own enlightened self interest (a job). They tended to be less
ideological and more pragmatic since their very jobs depended on the
party staying in power. They also provided workers, etc. They also
worked at a leavening influence by disipating much of the power of the
ideologues. Now, the more fanatical people have a much more important
influence, especially at the party nominating level, and thus at all
levels.

It goes a bit beyond profit. A strong local party has a vested interest in
promoting the best candidates - or at least discouraging marginal ones. A
poor candidate (i.e., caught with an under-age girl or any boy) will drag
down the rest of the ticket.

People engage in politics for one of three reasons: Pride, Power, or Profit.

Most of the Tea Party types and all of the progressives are in the game out
of pride and concern for society.

Profit is not all bad: There are people who print bumper stickers and yard
signs, produce TV spots, rent office space, install telephones, design
web-sites, and so on, that make a reasonable profit from political
campaigns.

And power? If your city councilman knows you by name because you worked in
his campaign or donated money and you also have a pot-hole in front of your
house, you have the power to get the pothole repaired.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 17:28:23 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in message news:X4Sdndjbe5-
stuff snipped

Yep. But that's the nature of our legal and political system - it's
adversarial in nature. While raucous at times, it's far superior to
one-party or multi-party rule. Those who urge "bipartisanship" simply do
not
understand the job at hand.

Gack! Bipartisanship can also read "compromise and cooperation." Just
because it has become politically popular to play "my way or the highway"
doesn't it mean that it's always been that way or should be be that way.
Both sides usually have good points but there's never enough money or will
to implement them all. So compromises must be reached based on what either
sides values the most and is willing to give up something for.

Compromise in principle, not on principles.

Party line voting just ends up in gridlock but both parties have made it
clear they will punish those who seek to cross over to vote their
conscience, not their party.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

It's why we're in the middle of revenge
politics right now. The side that gets into power quickly seeks to undo the
work of their enemies and vice versa. Based on the polls I've seen, Gov.
Walker wasn't given a "mandate" to go union-busting and his actions could
result in his recall.

Actually, he was.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:46:44 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

c
Yep. But that's the nature of our legal and political system - it's
adversarial in nature. While raucous at times, it's far superior to
one-party or multi-party rule. Those who urge "bipartisanship" simply do not
understand the job at hand.

Most of truly heinous things done to the Country have been done on a
bipartisan nature. For example, all of the changes to the banking laws
that people point to as harbingers of the financial crisis were passed
with huge bipartisan majorities. Heck the Glass-Steagal repeal passed
the Senate on a voice vote.

Hear, Hear! ;-)

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
"Robert Green" wrote:


Conflict doesn't HAVE to be the only output of a two party system. Once
upon a time, we were able forge compromises and maintain some forward
motion.

My theory (seriously) is that the demise of the patronage system at
the local level. At the time you had people active in the party for
their own enlightened self interest (a job). They tended to be less
ideological and more pragmatic since their very jobs depended on the
party staying in power. They also provided workers, etc. They also
worked at a leavening influence by dissipating much of the power of the
ideologues. Now, the more fanatical people have a much more important
influence, especially at the party nominating level, and thus at all
levels.

Actually that coincides what I learned in one of my Criminology classes. It
was very important for early immigrants to have someone to "bat" for them in
the many dealings they would have with local government. Tammany Hall
offered one avenue and despite all its negatives, got people jobs, out of
jail, found them homes, got streetlights installed, etc. A vote was worth
something and politicians were willing to act on behalf of the voters
because corporate America had not yet begun appearing with dump truck loads
of campaign cash.

I hate to say it but in the 20's through the 50's the Mafia took over a lot
of the functions that had been performed under the old patronage system and
then they unfortunately got entwined with many of the unions as a way to
gain and project power and extort money from business to pay bribes on
behalf of people unfortunate enough to be in business with them.

What surprises me is that people of foreign ancestry, like Italians, can
complete forget their time in the immigrant "box" and beat down on the next
wave of immigration. My Italian uncle Salvatore was told after graduating
in the late thirties with an AeroE degree: "Try South American if you want
to get an engineering job with such an Italian-sounding name.

Well, I think you've found at least one demarcation line when things really
started to change in American politics. It was also at the same time
corporations were getting more and more "people rights" so it would be
difficult to truly tease out which force changed things more, not at least
without a lot more analysis.

No matter what the driving force was, the vote saw a real depersonalization
and devaluation. When I had a problem, my elected officials performed a
great service. I moved out of DC because its residents don't get
representation. Even though it doesn't mean what it did in the 1900's, have
a Congressman or Senator to intercede for me in some potential government
problem is worth enough to move.

I've read that we are being nibbled to death by the interests of 1,000 of
special interest groups that can raise a ruckus so out of proportion to
their actual voting strength that government can't make any hard choices
anymore unless the sky is not just falling, but someone's already been
squashed. Look at SSA. Everyone knows what it's going to take. Barney
Frank said it best. "Everybody wants to go to heaven but nobody wants to
die." As the boomers age, SSA will become a more and more sacred cow.
Means testing could buy us years and years of coverage, but what politician
is willing to commit political suicide to get it done?

We might still be OK if we accounted for every *real* vote as carefully as
Las Vegas casinos track their chips. Electronic ballots with no paper trail
is like building six reactors on the ocean in a quake and tsunami zone.
It's asking for trouble. I am glad to see some jurisdictions realizing that
fact. I recently saw a film that claimed college kids cloned what turned
out to be the Diebold "master" ballot box key from a close up photo Diebold
had on their site. Whether it's true or not, from all I've read there's
reason to worry about us facing a seriously stolen election in the
not-to-distant future and being well into a Presidential term before it's
discovered. At least 20 posters from both parties will assure us that's
already happened. (-: Is it like when a cop's found out to be working for
drug dealers and all his arrests face being voided? What do you do if you
find President Palin's well-meaning campaign workers created or changed
votes that brought her in as the winner in 2012, but it's not discovered
until 2015? Do over? Asterisk in the history books? Does the loser finish
out her term?

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
" wrote:

O
Most of truly heinous things done to the Country have been done on a
bipartisan nature. For example, all of the changes to the banking laws
that people point to as harbingers of the financial crisis were passed
with huge bipartisan majorities. Heck the Glass-Steagal repeal passed
the Senate on a voice vote.

Hear, Hear! ;-)

The worst thing to come out of the research for this statement is
respect for Barney Frank. Whilst Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and others
currently flapping their gums were voting for most of these bills,
Barney voted against them consistently and every chance he got. Damn
him. (g).

--
"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 ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


What surprises me is that people of foreign ancestry, like Italians, can
complete forget their time in the immigrant "box" and beat down on the next
wave of immigration. My Italian uncle Salvatore was told after graduating
in the late thirties with an AeroE degree: "Try South American if you want
to get an engineering job with such an Italian-sounding name.
I don't know. From my reading it seems like dumping on the next group
was sorta right of passage from being the last group.



Well, I think you've found at least one demarcation line when things really
started to change in American politics. It was also at the same time
corporations were getting more and more "people rights" so it would be
difficult to truly tease out which force changed things more, not at least
without a lot more analysis.

Can you put a date or time frame on that corporate thing? I have
done some research on that and I am interested if your perception of the
timing is close to when it started popping up. Just curious, if you
don't mind.


We might still be OK if we accounted for every *real* vote as carefully as
Las Vegas casinos track their chips. Electronic ballots with no paper trail
is like building six reactors on the ocean in a quake and tsunami zone.
I have argued against that if only because of the possibility of a
badly timed blue screen of death. The other considerations are
important, but this one alone would seem to argue for a paper trail.

It's asking for trouble. I am glad to see some jurisdictions realizing that
fact. I recently saw a film that claimed college kids cloned what turned
out to be the Diebold "master" ballot box key from a close up photo Diebold
had on their site. Whether it's true or not, from all I've read there's
reason to worry about us facing a seriously stolen election in the
not-to-distant future and being well into a Presidential term before it's
discovered. At least 20 posters from both parties will assure us that's
already happened. (-: Is it like when a cop's found out to be working for
drug dealers and all his arrests face being voided? What do you do if you
find President Palin's well-meaning campaign workers created or changed
votes that brought her in as the winner in 2012, but it's not discovered
until 2015? Do over? Asterisk in the history books? Does the loser finish
out her term?

Legally she finishes out her term. Under the constitution, once the
electors meet and vote, the Pres is the Pres. Period. The only option
(and in the final analysis this is a political decision) would be
impeachment. A person could resign, but I don't think that would be too
likely.

--
"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 Mar 18, 9:21*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

* *My theory (seriously) is that the demise of the patronage system at
the local level. At the time you had people active in the party for
their own enlightened self interest (a job). They tended to be less
ideological and more pragmatic since their very jobs depended on the
party staying in power. They also provided workers, etc. *They also
worked at a leavening influence by disipating much of the power of the
ideologues. Now, the more fanatical people have a much more important
influence, especially at the party nominating level, and thus at all
levels.

It goes a bit beyond profit. A strong local party has a vested interest in
promoting the best candidates - or at least discouraging marginal ones. A
poor candidate (i.e., caught with an under-age girl or any boy) will drag
down the rest of the ticket.

People engage in politics for one of three reasons: Pride, Power, or Profit.

Most of the Tea Party types and all of the progressives are in the game out
of pride and concern for society.

Profit is not all bad: There are people who print bumper stickers and yard
signs, produce TV spots, rent office space, install telephones, design
web-sites, and so on, that make a reasonable profit from political
campaigns.

And power? If your city councilman knows you by name because you worked in
his campaign or donated money and you also have a pot-hole in front of your
house, you have the power to get the pothole repaired.

Probably true in America.
You don't know about the ones that are trying to improve things for
everyone.
What a nasty place you live in.
What a nasty mindset.
Profit is bad if has not been worked creatively for.

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:07 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.
Except she has virtually no power over anyone - particularly
Canadians.

wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:07 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him
or her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad
enough. QEII seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but
one of these mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck
with her idiot son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to
explain it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are
citizens, you are subjects.

Except she has virtually no power over anyone - particularly
Canadians.

The Queen is the head of state of Canada.

On Mar 19, 9:39*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)



Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

On Mar 20, 1:39*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:07 -0400, aemeijers
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him
or her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad
enough. QEII seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but
one of these mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck
with her idiot son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to
explain it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are
citizens, you are subjects.
Except she has virtually no power over anyone - particularly
Canadians.

The Queen is the head of state of Canada.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's one reason why everybody likes Canadians.
All Americans have is the likes of GW. Sad really.

On Mar 19, 9:39*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)



Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

On 3/20/2011 3:43 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 1:39 am, wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:07 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him
or her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad
enough. QEII seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but
one of these mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck
with her idiot son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to
explain it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are
citizens, you are subjects.
Except she has virtually no power over anyone - particularly
Canadians.

The Queen is the head of state of Canada.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's one reason why everybody likes Canadians.
All Americans have is the likes of GW. Sad really.

Harry, GW, I assume you are referring to G. W. Bush? Pay attention:

BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ANY LONGER, HE SERVED
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TERMS ALLOWED BY LAW. HE DID NOT DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW AND TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AS MANY HYSTERICAL LIBERAL WIENERS CLAIMED
HE WOULD. THE MAN IS OUT OF OFFICE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

You can turn your hearing aid back up now. ^_^

TDD

On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)



Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD

On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)



Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

That's one reason why everybody likes Canadians.
All Americans have is the likes of GW. Sad really.

Harry, GW, I assume you are referring to G. W. Bush? Pay attention:

BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ANY LONGER, HE SERVED
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TERMS ALLOWED BY LAW. HE DID NOT DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW AND TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AS MANY HYSTERICAL LIBERAL WIENERS
CLAIMED HE WOULD. THE MAN IS OUT OF OFFICE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

You can turn your hearing aid back up now. ^_^


You are correct. But I still miss Bush.

On 3/20/2011 6:56 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

That's one reason why everybody likes Canadians.
All Americans have is the likes of GW. Sad really.

Harry, GW, I assume you are referring to G. W. Bush? Pay attention:

BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ANY LONGER, HE SERVED
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TERMS ALLOWED BY LAW. HE DID NOT DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW AND TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AS MANY HYSTERICAL LIBERAL WIENERS
CLAIMED HE WOULD. THE MAN IS OUT OF OFFICE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

You can turn your hearing aid back up now. ^_^


You are correct. But I still miss Bush.



You and G W Bush have something in common, you're Texans and REAL
Americans. :-)

TDD

On Mar 20, 11:14*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 1:39 am, *wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:07 -0400,
wrote:

On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this..
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him
or her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad
enough. QEII seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but
one of these mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck
with her idiot son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to
explain it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are
citizens, you are subjects.
Except she has virtually no power over anyone - particularly
Canadians.

The Queen is the head of state of Canada.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's one reason why everybody likes Canadians.
All Americans have is the likes of GW. Sad really.

Harry, GW, I assume you are referring to G. W. Bush? Pay attention:

BUSH IS NOT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ANY LONGER, HE SERVED
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TERMS ALLOWED BY LAW. HE DID NOT DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW AND TAKE OVER AS DICTATOR AS MANY HYSTERICAL LIBERAL WIENERS CLAIMED
HE WOULD. THE MAN IS OUT OF OFFICE! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!

You can turn your hearing aid back up now. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I merely mentioned him (GW) as the jury is still out on the present
incumbent.
His acid test is coming up right now. (Libya) I have to say it's not
looking good.

On Mar 20, 11:32*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. *You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) *Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? *Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you really need to remember, it was Repugnants who f***d up your
great country. I hope the damage is not permanent. With the level of
debt you now have your freedom of choice is severely limited. Except
of course the bankers who can do as they want, protected by taxpayers
money.
You're all gonna be eating grass for this next few decades. As are
we.
Made worse by the Libya business.

On Mar 20, 11:38*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. *The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

On 3/20/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you really need to remember, it was Repugnants who f***d up your
great country. I hope the damage is not permanent. With the level of
debt you now have your freedom of choice is severely limited. Except
of course the bankers who can do as they want, protected by taxpayers
money.
You're all gonna be eating grass for this next few decades. As are
we.
Made worse by the Libya business.

Harry, I'm an American and I don't believe The Republicans screwed up
the country and I'm not a Republican. All spending is authorized by The
House of Representatives. The party that controls The House controls
spending. The President is not a dictator he can't do whatever the heck
he wants to do with the country's money. The three branches of United
States Government usually do a fair job of keeping each other in check.
It may take a little more time than what a dictatorship may take to get
it right but things eventually work out. :-)

TDD

On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

TDD

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. The city takes
care of that for them! It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. ;-) Also note who their new mayor is.

On 3/20/2011 4:18 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. The city takes
care of that for them! It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. ;-) Also note who their new mayor is.

Amazing isn't it? ^_^

TDD

On Mar 20, 6:47*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 11:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, * *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this..
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. *You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) *Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? *Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you really need to remember, it was Repugnants who f***d up your
great country. *I hope the damage is not permanent. *With the level of
debt you now have your freedom of choice is severely limited. *Except
of course the bankers who can do as they want, protected by taxpayers
money.
You're all gonna be eating grass for this next few decades. *As are
we.
Made worse by the Libya business.

Harry, I'm an American and I don't believe The Republicans screwed up
the country and I'm not a Republican. All spending is authorized by The
House of Representatives. The party that controls The House controls
spending. The President is not a dictator he can't do whatever the heck
he wants to do with the country's money. The three branches of United
States Government usually do a fair job of keeping each other in check.
It may take a little more time than what a dictatorship may take to get
it right but things eventually work out. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

American presidents removed legislation enacted after the 1930s
debacle. Starting with Regan. The country was f***d up on Repugnant
watch. Several financial experts warned that trouble was ahead, but
no they Rs) needed their rich friends to get richer still.

This cockup is something special. It's gonna be with us a long time.

On Mar 20, 9:18*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas





wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, * *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. *The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? * Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? *Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. *The city takes
care of that for them! *It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. *;-) *Also note who their new mayor is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. The Jews are taking over? More power to Israel.

On 3/21/2011 3:43 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 6:47 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 11:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you really need to remember, it was Repugnants who f***d up your
great country. I hope the damage is not permanent. With the level of
debt you now have your freedom of choice is severely limited. Except
of course the bankers who can do as they want, protected by taxpayers
money.
You're all gonna be eating grass for this next few decades. As are
we.
Made worse by the Libya business.

Harry, I'm an American and I don't believe The Republicans screwed up
the country and I'm not a Republican. All spending is authorized by The
House of Representatives. The party that controls The House controls
spending. The President is not a dictator he can't do whatever the heck
he wants to do with the country's money. The three branches of United
States Government usually do a fair job of keeping each other in check.
It may take a little more time than what a dictatorship may take to get
it right but things eventually work out. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

American presidents removed legislation enacted after the 1930s
debacle. Starting with Regan. The country was f***d up on Repugnant
watch. Several financial experts warned that trouble was ahead, but
no they Rs) needed their rich friends to get richer still.

This cockup is something special. It's gonna be with us a long time.

Harry, Republicans warned of impending problems due to the Affirmative
Action lending pushed on the banks by Democrats and they were ignored.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed back during the time period
when Congress had been controlled exclusively by Democrats for 40 years.
It was singed into law by Jimmy Carter. People who could not get
a mortgage in normal circumstances were allowed to go into debt for
homes they could not afford. I could have gotten a loan because of that
nonsense but I have better sense than that because I knew I was not in
good enough financial shape to proceed. I don't blame Republicans
exclusively for the financial cluster coitus, I blame all of them. The
blame I lay on the Republicans is that didn't fight hard enough to fix
the problem. They should have acted like spoiled brat Democrats with all
sorts of histrionics that Democrats are famous for and done whatever
they could to disrupt government until they got their way. I
would have enjoyed watching Republicans turning the tables on Democrats
by pitching a real bitch. ^_^

TDD

On 3/21/2011 3:48 AM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 9:18 pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas





wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. The city takes
care of that for them! It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. ;-) Also note who their new mayor is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. The Jews are taking over? More power to Israel.

That's funny, The Mayor's religion isn't the first thing that came to my
mind because I don't think it matters much. What matters is the fact
that the guy is a Commiecrat. :-)

TDD

On Mar 21, 9:57*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/21/2011 3:48 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 9:18 pm, "
*wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas

*wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, * * *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. *The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? * Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? *Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. *The city takes
care of that for them! *It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. *;-) *Also note who their new mayor is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. The Jews are taking over? *More power to Israel.

That's funny, The Mayor's religion isn't the first thing that came to my
mind because I don't think it matters much. What matters is the fact
that the guy is a Commiecrat. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Jews are the most dangerous lobbyists in the USA. The Iraq war
was to defend Israel.

On Mar 21, 9:54*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 3/21/2011 3:43 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 6:47 pm, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:

On Mar 20, 11:32 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 3:37 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, * * *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough.. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

If we don't like our royalty we behead them.

I can see youare a typical credulous Yank. *You don't get to choose
your president. The only candidates you get to vote for are selected
and paid for by the various lobby interests. ie, the wealthy. They are
there to protect the interests of the wealthy, not yours (unless you
are one of the wealthy).
After the way taxpayer's money was used protect the banks (but not the
working American) you should be able to see I speak the truth.
You are actually a slave race in America.
The revolution was only so rich people didn't have to pay tax.
(Something about tea?) *Nothing has changed since.
I see you too are also reverting to inherited leadership too (Bush&
Bush) and(Clinton&Clinton nearly).
Your own leadership hates American people. Why else do they let the
rich export jobs and escape tax? *Why else do theylet in hoards of
illegal immigrants when they could be stopped tommorrow (by jailing
employers)?

Harry my friend, I know you understand that Americans usually go along
quietly minding their own business (the citizenry, not government) until
government finds the limit of what we Americans will tolerate and when
the idiot government types find that limit, watch out, Americans can be
extremely dangerous to anyone gets us stirred up. It's happening now to
a number of Liberal Commiecrats who thought they were going to take over
and dictate to the American people how they will live their lives.
The Commiecrats have been nipping at our collective backsides for many
years but the big dog is starting to scratch at the fleas and will soon
be rid of most of them. The damn tics are going to be a bit more of a
chore to get rid of but we will prevail. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Duf, you really need to remember, it was Repugnants who f***d up your
great country. *I hope the damage is not permanent. *With the level of
debt you now have your freedom of choice is severely limited. *Except
of course the bankers who can do as they want, protected by taxpayers
money.
You're all gonna be eating grass for this next few decades. *As are
we.
Made worse by the Libya business.

Harry, I'm an American and I don't believe The Republicans screwed up
the country and I'm not a Republican. All spending is authorized by The
House of Representatives. The party that controls The House controls
spending. The President is not a dictator he can't do whatever the heck
he wants to do with the country's money. The three branches of United
States Government usually do a fair job of keeping each other in check..
It may take a little more time than what a dictatorship may take to get
it right but things eventually work out. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

American presidents removed legislation enacted after the 1930s
debacle. Starting with Regan. *The country was f***d up on Repugnant
watch. *Several financial experts warned that trouble was ahead, but
no they Rs) needed their rich friends to get richer still.

This cockup is something special. *It's gonna be with us a long time.

Harry, Republicans warned of impending problems due to the Affirmative
Action lending pushed on the banks by Democrats and they were ignored.
The Community Reinvestment Act was passed back during the time period
when Congress had been controlled exclusively by Democrats for 40 years.
It was singed into law by Jimmy Carter. People who could not get
a mortgage in normal circumstances were allowed to go into debt for
homes they could not afford. I could have gotten a loan because of that
nonsense but I have better sense than that because I knew I was not in
good enough financial shape to proceed. I don't blame Republicans
exclusively for the financial cluster coitus, I blame all of them. The
blame I lay on the Republicans is that didn't fight hard enough to fix
the problem. They should have acted like spoiled brat Democrats with all
sorts of histrionics that Democrats are famous for and done whatever
they could to disrupt government until they got their way. I
would have enjoyed watching Republicans turning the tables on Democrats
by pitching a real bitch. ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Here you go Duf:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
The man the buggered up America.The pigeons have come home to roost

On 3/21/2011 2:27 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 21, 9:57 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/21/2011 3:48 AM, harry wrote:





On Mar 20, 9:18 pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas

wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. The city takes
care of that for them! It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. ;-) Also note who their new mayor is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. The Jews are taking over? More power to Israel.

That's funny, The Mayor's religion isn't the first thing that came to my
mind because I don't think it matters much. What matters is the fact
that the guy is a Commiecrat. :-)

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The Jews are the most dangerous lobbyists in the USA. The Iraq war
was to defend Israel.

Harry my thought is that the war in Iraq was about stability. Saddam
Hussein was crazy enough to attack Israel and set the whole Middle East
afire and there would have been a lot more death than has occurred. I'm
sure Israel would have tested its nukes on Iraq and any Islamic country
in the area would have joined in and used nukes if they had them. I
don't think you want to see your Palestinian pals broiled alive and
Islamists don't care if they slaughter their own as long as they kill
whoever happens to be the Infidel of the day. I don't think the war was
being prosecuted just to protect Israel but to keep the region from
becoming unstable and stopping the flow of oil to the WHOLE world and
disrupting world economy.

TDD

harry wrote:

The Jews are the most dangerous lobbyists in the USA. The Iraq war
was to defend Israel.

Uh, no. The Iraq war was so that Israel would help defend the U.S. should
the need arise. Don't forget, Israel can field a land army (18 divisions of
infantry and armor) bigger than the 12 divisions (ten Army and two Marine)
authorized for the U.S.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:48:18 -0700 (PDT), harry wrote:

On Mar 20, 9:18*pm, "
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 13:48:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas





wrote:
On 3/20/2011 1:21 PM, harry wrote:
On Mar 20, 11:38 am, The Daring
wrote:
On 3/20/2011 4:01 AM, harry wrote:

On Mar 19, 9:39 pm, * *wrote:
On 3/19/2011 1:19 PM, harry wrote:
(snip)

Having the Queen prevents the appearance of the likes of Bush and
Saddam Hussein. The Canadians and lots of other countries know this.
Again read all about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_II

Yeah, but at least if we have a bad president, we can get rid of him or
her, either in 4 years, or sooner if their offenses are bad enough. QEII
seems like a decent enough old lady (for a royal), but one of these
mornings, she won't wake up, and then you will be stuck with her idiot
son. And he seems rather healthy.

If you don't understand why the basic concept of blood royalty (as
opposed to the faux royalty of temporary celebrity) is inherently
offensive and dehumanizing, there is little point in trying to explain
it to you. *I prefer to choose who I bow to. We are citizens, you are
subjects.

--
aem sends...

Your voting system is rigged too. *The system most places use is open
to abuse, eg the last Florida episode where the machines were tampered
with.

Harry, we have a miraculous area in America call Illinois more precisely
the city of Chicago. There is a magic there that allows dead Democrats
to vote for many years after they have died. Many Democrats want to be
buried in Chicago after they die so they can keep voting. America is an
amazing place, isn't it? ^_^

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. Even I have heard this. Zombies is it? * Or is it these folks in
cryogenic storage? *Do they get to vote by proxy?

The beauty is that they don't even have to wake up to vote. *The city takes
care of that for them! *It's such a wonderful place.

I suppose whoever controls the urn of ashes controls their vote. ^_^

Chicago is an urinal. *;-) *Also note who their new mayor is.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah. The Jews are taking over? More power to Israel.

Is it possible to even try to be more clueless?