On Oct 8, 2:25*pm, George wrote:
On 10/8/2011 12:45 PM, JimT wrote:
On 10/8/2011 11:31 AM, harry wrote:

LOL. You are clueless.

I wouldn't expect anything else from a bitter person who gets up every
morning and goes to bed every night hating the US and likely doesn't
even know why...

You left out the part about him ****ing himself while sleeping in his
nightly drunken stupor in the recliner. You can always tell when he's
tied one on - his spelling goes straight to hell.

But he's starting to grow on me. He's a village idiot, sure, but he's
OUR village idiot.

R

On Oct 8, 4:47*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

...
On Oct 8, 4:33 pm, "Steve B" wrote:

"RicodJour" wrote

The thing is absurd form the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). So why did you buy into it?

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

I don't know. *But you do know that the "list of demands" is a bunch
of bull**** from some anonymous poster, right? *So why do you bring it
up?


Sorry, you were the one who posted it. *Do try to keep up.

And I knew their demands were bull**** days ago. *What took you so long?

Sigh. They _have_ no demands. The list itself is the bull****. But
it fits in with your preconceived notions, so it must be true - eh?

However it does bring up an interesting question. There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. And we pay for it. Why? People without children pay
for it. Why?

R

On 10/08/11 05:09 pm, RicodJour wrote:

The thing is absurd from the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). So why did you buy into it?

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

I think it might have been Baake. And he wasn't bumped in favor of an
illegal alien. (However, I am not particularly in favor of these quotas
for minorities -- unless it's a tie on other grounds.)

I don't know. But you do know that the "list of demands" is a bunch
of bull**** from some anonymous poster, right? So why do you bring it
up?


Sorry, you were the one who posted it. Do try to keep up.

And I knew their demands were bull**** days ago. What took you so long?

Sigh. They _have_ no demands. The list itself is the bull****. But
it fits in with your preconceived notions, so it must be true - eh?

However it does bring up an interesting question. There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. And we pay for it. Why? People without children pay
for it. Why?

Because "we" (I am writing as though I were a US citizen, whereas in
fact I have a "Green Card") are a nation, a community, and we assume
responsibility for each other: we spread the benefits and we spread the
costs. We assume that education is necessary for all, so we all pay for
it -- even those of us who have no children. We assume that libraries
are a benefit to the community, so we all pay for it -- even those of us
who never read a book. We assume that roads are a benefit to the
community, so part of our taxes go to pay for their construction and
upkeep -- even those of us who do not drive a car or ride a bicycle.

It's "E pluribus unum" not "E pluribus plures."

Perce

On Oct 8, 1:33*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote

*The thing is absurd form the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). *So why did you buy into it?

R

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

Steve

Allan Bakke

The whole affirmative action brouhaha around his rejection to UC med
school happened in the early 70's (when I was attending UC-Irvine).

Long story shortened... Bakke finally did attend UC Davis med school
& graduated in 1982.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents...ornia_v._Bakke


cheers
Bob

On Oct 7, 6:55*am, Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote om:

"HeyBub" wrote

Heh! The protest is well-covered here. I saw a "man on the street"
interview with one of the protesters. The sign-carrying marcher was a
23-year old recent college graduate whose main complaint was he
couldn't find a job.

"What was your college major?" asked the interviewer.

"I don't see how that's relevant," replied the protester.

It is not relevant. *Anyone with a degree in Greek literature from
4200BC to 4100BC should be able to find the job of his dreams. *Those
oppressive capitalists are just not giving him a chance.

LOL. *Indeed. *His verbal skills should have landed him a lobbyists' job
long ago ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You need more than verbal skills to be a successful lobbyist. You
need a total vacuum where your morals should be.

HB

On Oct 7, 12:18*pm, Frank wrote:
On 10/7/2011 2:00 PM, Higgs Boson wrote:

On Oct 7, 9:43 am, "__ Bøb *wrote:
I think its great, and great that the unions are joining in.
Just strengthens the working man's crowd that will vote Obama and
socialism out.

The unions aren't "joining in" ... they started it all.

--
"If you voted for Obama in 2008 to prove you're not a racist you'll
have to vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not stupid!"

Conspiracy theory du jour.

HB

Think this describes you and the protesters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot


Why throw me into the same garbage can where you just tossed the
protestors? You don't know anything about how I feel about the
protestors. You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists. That's a projection out of your limited mind.

HB

On Oct 8, 2:49*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 10/08/11 05:09 pm, RicodJour wrote:

The thing is absurd from the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). So why did you buy into it?

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

I think it might have been Baake. And he wasn't bumped in favor of an
illegal alien. (However, I am not particularly in favor of these quotas
for minorities -- unless it's a tie on other grounds.)









I don't know. *But you do know that the "list of demands" is a bunch
of bull**** from some anonymous poster, right? *So why do you bring it
up?

Sorry, you were the one who posted it. *Do try to keep up.

And I knew their demands were bull**** days ago. *What took you so long?

Sigh. *They _have_ no demands. *The list itself is the bull****. *But
it fits in with your preconceived notions, so it must be true - eh?

However it does bring up an interesting question. *There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. *And we pay for it. *Why? *People without children pay
for it. *Why?

Because "we" (I am writing as though I were a US citizen, whereas in
fact I have a "Green Card") are a nation, a community, and we assume
responsibility for each other: we spread the benefits and we spread the
costs. We assume that education is necessary for all, so we all pay for
it -- even those of us who have no children. We assume that libraries
are a benefit to the community, so we all pay for it -- even those of us
who never read a book. We assume that roads are a benefit to the
community, so part of our taxes go to pay for their construction and
upkeep -- even those of us who do not drive a car or ride a bicycle.

It's "E pluribus unum" not "E pluribus plures."

Perce

PC-

California really didn't have much of an illegal alien situation in
the 70's.

Bakke got rejected when "his spot" was given to a minority candidate
or so he his suit claimed.
He was solid candidate in his day & we (all the white college males)
we're pretty unhappy about his rejection
and concerned about the future of professions where "less qualified
applicants" were admitted.

His rejection may have been the spark that created the term "reverse
discrimination"

Here's a pretty reasonable history of affirmative action, which didn't
really get rolling (widespread) until the late 60's / early 70's.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affir...#ixzz1aEMeouRK

"From the outset, affirmative action was envisioned as a temporary
remedy that would end once there was a "level playing field" for all
Americans."

but I guess it didn't quite work out that way.....

cheers
Bob

On Oct 8, 6:51*am, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:17*am, harry wrote:



They're just normal people that's ****ed off.

Hee Haw, you couldn't spell normal with a five letter head start.

And please brush up on having verb tenses agree when referring to a
single subject. *Thanks.

R

Careful, man - you get lynched on this NG by the Usual Suspects for
caring about our beautiful language. I bin der.

HB

On Oct 8, 1:33*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote

*The thing is absurd form the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). *So why did you buy into it?

R

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

Steve

Bakke.

On Oct 8, 2:49*pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 10/08/11 05:09 pm, RicodJour wrote:

The thing is absurd from the get go, with
a few plausible items thrown in for believability (free education for
all). So why did you buy into it?

Make that free education for all, including illegal aliens, with a heavy
bias towards ANY minority to the exclusion of legal citizen students who
actually test higher.

What was the name of the med student who got bumped and had high scores?
Banke?

I think it might have been Baake. And he wasn't bumped in favor of an
illegal alien. (However, I am not particularly in favor of these quotas
for minorities -- unless it's a tie on other grounds.)









I don't know. *But you do know that the "list of demands" is a bunch
of bull**** from some anonymous poster, right? *So why do you bring it
up?

Sorry, you were the one who posted it. *Do try to keep up.

And I knew their demands were bull**** days ago. *What took you so long?

Sigh. *They _have_ no demands. *The list itself is the bull****. *But
it fits in with your preconceived notions, so it must be true - eh?

However it does bring up an interesting question. *There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. *And we pay for it. *Why? *People without children pay
for it. *Why?

Because "we" (I am writing as though I were a US citizen, whereas in
fact I have a "Green Card") are a nation, a community, and we assume
responsibility for each other: we spread the benefits and we spread the
costs. We assume that education is necessary for all, so we all pay for
it -- even those of us who have no children. We assume that libraries
are a benefit to the community, so we all pay for it -- even those of us
who never read a book. We assume that roads are a benefit to the
community, so part of our taxes go to pay for their construction and
upkeep -- even those of us who do not drive a car or ride a bicycle.

It's "E pluribus unum" not "E pluribus plures."

Perce

here's another good article on the Baake case & AA.

http://movies.nytimes.com/library/na...82race-ra.html

note that minority enrollment in med & law schools peaked in the 70's

cheers
Bob

RicodJour writes:

However it does bring up an interesting question. There is no such
thing as "free" education, of course, yet all children are required to
go to school. And we pay for it. Why? People without children pay
for it. Why?

Oh, I know this one.

Because it makes the little savages a bit less dangerous.



--
Dan Espen

Higgs Boson wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:55 am, Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote
om:

"HeyBub" wrote

Heh! The protest is well-covered here. I saw a "man on the street"
interview with one of the protesters. The sign-carrying marcher
was a 23-year old recent college graduate whose main complaint was
he couldn't find a job.

"What was your college major?" asked the interviewer.

"I don't see how that's relevant," replied the protester.

It is not relevant. Anyone with a degree in Greek literature from
4200BC to 4100BC should be able to find the job of his dreams. Those
oppressive capitalists are just not giving him a chance.

LOL. Indeed. His verbal skills should have landed him a lobbyists'
job
long ago ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You need more than verbal skills to be a successful lobbyist. You
need a total vacuum where your morals should be.


Lobbyists get a bad rap; they are absolutely necessary to a functioning
government.

In sum, lobbyists provide FREE expert advice on pending legislation. Would
you want your local congress-critter to vote for the rail tariff on
hydrogenated yak-fat? Hell, he probably doesn't even know what a yak is, let
alone what the fifty-cents per hdwt tariff would do to the struggling
yak-fat business.

Higgs Boson wrote:


Why throw me into the same garbage can where you just tossed the
protestors? You don't know anything about how I feel about the
protestors. You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists. That's a projection out of your limited mind.


I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe in a
post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming blacks
when they should be blaming Democrats.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Lobbyists get a bad rap; they are absolutely necessary to a
functioning government.

In sum, lobbyists provide FREE expert advice on pending legislation.
Would you want your local congress-critter to vote for the rail tariff
on hydrogenated yak-fat? Hell, he probably doesn't even know what a
yak is, let alone what the fifty-cents per hdwt tariff would do to the
struggling yak-fat business.

Very true. But it isn't totally out of the goodness of their hearts that
the lobbyists give "free" advice. They are PAID to skew legislation to
their patrons' advantage. Whether the congresscritters can always figure
that out AND act in the coomon interest is very doubtful.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Oct 8, 8:00*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:

Why throw me into the same garbage can where you just tossed the
protestors? *You don't know anything about how I feel about the
protestors. *You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. *It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists. *That's a projection out of your limited mind.

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe in a
post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming blacks
when they should be blaming Democrats.

Interesting point, and because of it I think I've further developed my
contrarian theory. I am now a ContraHeyRubian. Now I'll hardly have
to do any reading up on the matter at all. You've already done all
the work and come up with the wrong answer. Anything you promote, I
vote against. You've saved me a ton of research time. Thanks! ~

R

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists.

Right. People voted against him because of his potential for
corruption.

Even given those facts, people still voted for him.

Did you vote for Obama?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 17:56:16 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Sat, 8 Oct 2011 15:10:31 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists.

Right. People voted against him because of his potential for
corruption.

Even given those facts, people still voted for him.

Did you vote for Obama?

Higgs Moron? That idiot will vote for the idiot again. Maybe three times.

On Oct 9, 12:57*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:
On Oct 7, 6:55 am, Han wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote
om:

"HeyBub" wrote

Heh! The protest is well-covered here. I saw a "man on the street"
interview with one of the protesters. The sign-carrying marcher
was a 23-year old recent college graduate whose main complaint was
he couldn't find a job.

"What was your college major?" asked the interviewer.

"I don't see how that's relevant," replied the protester.

It is not relevant. Anyone with a degree in Greek literature from
4200BC to 4100BC should be able to find the job of his dreams. Those
oppressive capitalists are just not giving him a chance.

LOL. Indeed. His verbal skills should have landed him a lobbyists'
job
long ago ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

You need more than verbal skills to be a successful lobbyist. *You
need a total vacuum where your morals should be.

Lobbyists get a bad rap; they are absolutely necessary to a functioning
government.

In sum, lobbyists provide FREE expert advice on pending legislation. Would
you want your local congress-critter to vote for the rail tariff on
hydrogenated yak-fat? Hell, he probably doesn't even know what a yak is, let
alone what the fifty-cents per hdwt tariff would do to the struggling
yak-fat business.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You really are in cloud cuckoo land. All lobbying should be illegal.
See where it's got America?
That and greed.

harry wrote:

You really are in cloud cuckoo land. All lobbying should be illegal.
See where it's got America?
That and greed.

If you think that lobbying (and greed) made this the greatest nation in the
world, then lobbying should be bronzed and then gold plated. Instead of the
"Peace Corps," we should have the "Lobby Corps" and teach the benighted
nations the path to prosperity.

As for greed, absolutely NO great thinker throughout history, from Plato to
Margaret Thatcher, has EVER denigrated greed.

You are clearly on the side of the Luddites.

RicodJour wrote:

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe
in a post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming
blacks when they should be blaming Democrats.

Interesting point, and because of it I think I've further developed my
contrarian theory. I am now a ContraHeyRubian. Now I'll hardly have
to do any reading up on the matter at all. You've already done all
the work and come up with the wrong answer. Anything you promote, I
vote against. You've saved me a ton of research time. Thanks! ~


No, Thank you! I just want to make this a better world.

On 10/8/2011 2:42 AM, harry wrote:
On Oct 7, 7:38 pm, wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:59 am, wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:19 pm,
wrote: On Oct 7, 2:50 am, wrote:

Can hardly find a mention of it on American news channels.

Once again, the village idiot's grasp of the facts is exposed.
It's been covered as one of the top stories for days here on
CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN.....

No links then I see?

Google broken in your town?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9v3...?v=jrRj83BunNE

This is more interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNuDPsE-oQI

Me, like most rational Americans have no problem with protests and
peaceful assemblies because we have a right to PEACEFUL assembly.
The problem comes in when the protest interferes with MY rights or
the rights of OTHERS. I wonder how Michael Moore would feel if a
group of ultra conservative people who don't like his films, decided
to block him from going about his lawful business. The band of useful
idiots for The Left who are running wild in the streets have no clue
how The Economy works and how the whole mess was caused by GOVERNMENT
interference with The Economy. The government can not create real jobs,
the government can only interfere and prevent the creation of real jobs.
Many businesses are holding on to their money because they have no idea
what our first and last Affirmative Action President and his minions
are going to do next to muck everything up. Businesses like people, vote
with their feet. If the government in one place interferes too much with
business, the business will go elsewhere to find a place with little or
no interference with their lawful activities. A good example
is anti-business California which is losing population and businesses
to states like Texas where a business can thrive without burdensome
government regulations and taxes. The cluster coitus known as The
Economy is in deep trouble for some very complicated reasons not easily
understood by the sheeple. The problem, as usual, is The Left pointing
the blame gun at the wrong target.

TDD

In article ,
Han wrote:

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Lobbyists get a bad rap; they are absolutely necessary to a
functioning government.

In sum, lobbyists provide FREE expert advice on pending legislation.
Would you want your local congress-critter to vote for the rail tariff
on hydrogenated yak-fat? Hell, he probably doesn't even know what a
yak is, let alone what the fifty-cents per hdwt tariff would do to the
struggling yak-fat business.

Very true. But it isn't totally out of the goodness of their hearts that
the lobbyists give "free" advice. They are PAID to skew legislation to
their patrons' advantage. Whether the congresscritters can always figure
that out AND act in the coomon interest is very doubtful.

Although HB mentioned yak fat lobbyists, and thus sorta steered the
conversation toward the business side, if you look at contributions, the
biggest as of last year was ATT (before the T-Mobile merger so I can
only guess what they are spending now). But the next 5 were unions, a
couple of environmental groups and then the next business group (the
Chamber of Commerce). The lobbyists lists were a little different, but
still not exactly heavily laded with business people in the top 20.
Anyway, business lobbying and contributions are not the only bad
influence on CC's.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 10/8/2011 8:00 PM, HeyBub wrote:
Higgs Boson wrote:


Why throw me into the same garbage can where you just tossed the
protestors? You don't know anything about how I feel about the
protestors. You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists. That's a projection out of your limited mind.


I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe in a
post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming blacks
when they should be blaming Democrats.



No, a lot of us voted for Obama (albeit reluctantly) because we didn't
want the Dingbat to be one frail heartbeat away from the oval office.
Obama was clearly a socialist, but we were hoping enough people in
Congress would actually do their jobs (what WERE we thinking?), that he
couldn't do too much harm in four years.

Sadly, given the announced candidates so far, it looks like he just may
avoid being another Jimmy Carter, and get himself a second term.

Standard disclaimer- I have absolutely no problem with a female POTUS.
But they have to have a few brain cells, and be able to speak in
coherent sentences. The same criteria I apply to male candidates.
--
aem sends...

On Oct 9, 12:41*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

You really are in cloud cuckoo land. All lobbying should be illegal.
See where it's got America?
That and greed.

If you think that lobbying (and greed) made this the greatest nation in the
world, then lobbying should be bronzed and then gold plated. Instead of the
"Peace Corps," we should have the "Lobby Corps" and teach the benighted
nations the path to prosperity.

As for greed, absolutely NO great thinker throughout history, from Plato to
Margaret Thatcher, has EVER denigrated greed.

You are clearly on the side of the Luddites.

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

On Oct 9, 12:59*pm, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
On 10/8/2011 2:42 AM, harry wrote:





On Oct 7, 7:38 pm, *wrote:
On Oct 7, 8:59 am, *wrote:

On Oct 7, 1:19 pm,
wrote: *On Oct 7, 2:50 am, *wrote:

Can hardly find a mention of it on American news channels.

Once again, the village idiot's grasp of the facts is exposed.
* It's been covered as one of the top stories for days here on
* CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, CNN.....

No links then I see?

Google broken in your town?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wg9v3...atedhttp://www....

This is more interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNuDPsE-oQI

Me, like most rational Americans have no problem with protests and
peaceful assemblies because we have a right to PEACEFUL assembly.
The problem comes in when the protest interferes with MY rights or
the rights of OTHERS. I wonder how Michael Moore would feel if a
group of ultra conservative people who don't like his films, decided
to block him from going about his lawful business. The band of useful
idiots for The Left who are running wild in the streets have no clue
how The Economy works and how the whole mess was caused by GOVERNMENT
interference with The Economy. The government can not create real jobs,
the government can only interfere and prevent the creation of real jobs.
Many businesses are holding on to their money because they have no idea
what our first and last Affirmative Action President and his minions
are going to do next to muck everything up. Businesses like people, vote
with their feet. If the government in one place interferes too much with
business, the business will go elsewhere to find a place with little or
no interference with their lawful activities. A good example
is anti-business California which is losing population and businesses
to states like Texas where a business can thrive without burdensome
government regulations and taxes. The cluster coitus known as The
Economy is in deep trouble for some very complicated reasons not easily
understood by the sheeple. The problem, as usual, is The Left pointing
the blame gun at the wrong target.

TDD- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The government is in the pockets of big business and the wealthy. That
is what they are beefing about. Politicians are bought, they are not
elected, they buy their places thanks to a brainwashed electorate.
The firstthingyou need to do is stop lobbying and stop politicians
from getting money from industry, commerce and private individuals to
finance their election campaigns.

The nation exists for the benifit of the majority not the hierarchy.
You are returning to monarchy, theonly difference being a new one is
installed every few years.
In fact you never left monarchy. Your "independence" was only so
rich people didn't have to pay taxes. Nothing has changed since.

On Oct 9, 6:52*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/8/2011 8:00 PM, HeyBub wrote:





Higgs Boson wrote:

Why throw me into the same garbage can where you just tossed the
protestors? *You don't know anything about how I feel about the
protestors. *You also don't know whether I voted for Obama, and if so,
why. *It's silly to speculate that people voted for him to prove they
are not racists. *That's a projection out of your limited mind.

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe in a
post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming blacks
when they should be blaming Democrats.

No, a lot of us voted for Obama (albeit reluctantly) because we didn't
want the Dingbat to be one frail heartbeat away from the oval office.
Obama was clearly a socialist, but we were hoping enough people in
Congress would actually do their jobs (what WERE we thinking?), that he
couldn't do too much harm in four years.

Sadly, given the announced candidates so far, it looks like he just may
avoid being another Jimmy Carter, and get himself a second term.

Standard disclaimer- I have absolutely no problem with a female POTUS.
But they have to have a few brain cells, and be able to speak in
coherent sentences. The same criteria I apply to male candidates.
--
aem sends...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was Bush and GOP that buggered up America. Forgotten already?
It will take decades tofix it. It may not even be possible.

On Oct 9, 2:19*pm, harry wrote:

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

It's curious that you believe yourself to be omniscient, yet you can't
see what a git you are.

Keep up the braying, Hee Haw.

R

The Daring Dufas wrote:
The problem, as usual, is The Left
pointing the blame gun at the wrong target.


Dunno about that. Saw one sign: "Shoot sperm, not bullets."

Sounds like fun.

harry wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

You really are in cloud cuckoo land. All lobbying should be illegal.
See where it's got America?
That and greed.

If you think that lobbying (and greed) made this the greatest nation
in the world, then lobbying should be bronzed and then gold plated.
Instead of the "Peace Corps," we should have the "Lobby Corps" and
teach the benighted nations the path to prosperity.

As for greed, absolutely NO great thinker throughout history, from
Plato to Margaret Thatcher, has EVER denigrated greed.

You are clearly on the side of the Luddites.

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.

aemeijers wrote:

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe
in a post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming
blacks when they should be blaming Democrats.



No, a lot of us voted for Obama (albeit reluctantly) because we didn't
want the Dingbat to be one frail heartbeat away from the oval office.

And, so far, your concerns have proven to be groundless, haven't they?

Obama was clearly a socialist, but we were hoping enough people in
Congress would actually do their jobs (what WERE we thinking?), that
he couldn't do too much harm in four years.

Sadly, given the announced candidates so far, it looks like he just
may avoid being another Jimmy Carter, and get himself a second term.

I keep hearing that, but EVERY SINGLE ONE of the so-far announced Republican
candidates have more experience in government or business than Obama had in
2008.

So, if you could, in good faith, vote for Obama in 2008, you should have no
trouble with any of the Republican candidates. At least on the basis of
experience.

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:32:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.


I can't wait for this reply from harry. It ought to a good one.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.

FOr the Russians my first guess would be drunk.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 10/9/2011 5:36 PM, HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe
in a post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming
blacks when they should be blaming Democrats.



No, a lot of us voted for Obama (albeit reluctantly) because we didn't
want the Dingbat to be one frail heartbeat away from the oval office.

And, so far, your concerns have proven to be groundless, haven't they?


The duties of POTUS are probably an order of magnitude more stressful
than those of a mere Senator. Google first day/last day pics of the last
half-dozen people to hold the office. They ALL looked at least ten years
older, even if they only served four. The job is a killer. Yeah, no
disrespect for McCain, but he has had a hard life, and there was
legitimate concern if he would last 4 years under the strain.

--
aem sends...

On 10/9/2011 5:54 PM, aemeijers wrote:
On 10/9/2011 5:36 PM, HeyBub wrote:
aemeijers wrote:

I've felt that many DID vote for Obama to demonstrate they believe
in a post-racial society.

Regrettably, in the next election, voters will be unfairly blaming
blacks when they should be blaming Democrats.



No, a lot of us voted for Obama (albeit reluctantly) because we didn't
want the Dingbat to be one frail heartbeat away from the oval office.

And, so far, your concerns have proven to be groundless, haven't they?


The duties of POTUS are probably an order of magnitude more stressful
than those of a mere Senator. Google first day/last day pics of the
last half-dozen people to hold the office. They ALL looked at least
ten years older, even if they only served four. The job is a killer.
Yeah, no disrespect for McCain, but he has had a hard life, and there
was legitimate concern if he would last 4 years under the strain.


McCain started losing his mojo when it became obvious he'd do anything
to get elected. Palin was just the last nail in the coffin. As it
turned out, it may have been the best for him and the US. I doubt we'd
be in a much better situation with the economy and he wanted more
involvement in Libya. Foreign policy wise, Obama seems to have been a
better choice. It's not just me that thinks this:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...-romney-speech

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
The Daring Dufas wrote:
The problem, as usual, is The Left
pointing the blame gun at the wrong target.


Dunno about that. Saw one sign: "Shoot sperm, not bullets."

Sounds like fun.

Trouble is, they are so damn small, they are hard to hit. And have a
verifiable kill..................

Steve

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:32:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.


I can't wait for this reply from harry. It ought to a good one.

No, you waiting on Harry is a good one. Thanks. ROTFLMAO. Quit, yer
killing me! Someone make him STOPPPPPPPPPPPP! PLEASE!

Steve

On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:27:27 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:32:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.



:I can't wait for this reply from harry. It ought to [be] a good one.

No, you waiting on Harry is a good one. Thanks. ROTFLMAO. Quit, yer
killing me! Someone make him STOPPPPPPPPPPPP! PLEASE!

Steve


C'mon Steve! harry may have an Epiphany. I wanna hear it.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 17:27:27 -0700, "Steve B"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 16:32:03 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.



:I can't wait for this reply from harry. It ought to [be] a good one.

No, you waiting on Harry is a good one. Thanks. ROTFLMAO. Quit, yer
killing me! Someone make him STOPPPPPPPPPPPP! PLEASE!

Steve


C'mon Steve! harry may have an Epiphany. I wanna hear it.

Or just an echo from the emptiness in there ...............

Steve

On Oct 9, 7:58*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:19*pm, harry wrote:



They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

It's curious that you believe yourself to be omniscient, yet you can't
see what a git you are.

Keep up the braying, Hee Haw.

R

I am omniscient compared with American retards. Did I not predict the
failure of the Iraq war a few of years back? Only now has your half
wit McCrystal admitted failure. So it has all been for nothing, while
the real (Saudi) culprits were allowed to escape.
Afghanistan will be an even bigger failure.
And I have also predicted the failure of the Arab spring, they will
get new despots (supported by the CIA).
As for the American spring, it too will fail. The protestors in Wall
Street (or rmost of them) will go home when it gets cold. Your
hierachy knows this and are waiting. They will move in then to
suppress whoever remains.
Real desperation will set in when they see their families hungry and
cold this Winter. We might see a few prominent bankers assassinated
then
which can only be good.

On Oct 9, 10:32*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:
On Oct 9, 12:41 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
harry wrote:

You really are in cloud cuckoo land. All lobbying should be illegal.
See where it's got America?
That and greed.

If you think that lobbying (and greed) made this the greatest nation
in the world, then lobbying should be bronzed and then gold plated.
Instead of the "Peace Corps," we should have the "Lobby Corps" and
teach the benighted nations the path to prosperity.

As for greed, absolutely NO great thinker throughout history, from
Plato to Margaret Thatcher, has EVER denigrated greed.

You are clearly on the side of the Luddites.

They have destroyed America. Greed is short term.
You probeably will never recover. The Chinese and Russians are the
next big players.

The Russians and the Chinese are motivated by exactly what? Altruism?
Charity? Or possibly they've come to Jesus? Maybe they're just drunk?

The crowd awaits your insight, oh glorious one.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

They want to destroy capitalism. They hate America for things it has
done. You are going to have to pay for all your past misdeeds in those
countries far far away you thought didn't matter. You are left with
few friends in the world. Not even Jewish ones who have simply used
you.
Russians just bide their time whilst America destroys it'self with
greed, self pity, lack of patriotism and petty squabbling. And don't
fool yourself they have not become capitalists.
They still have massive mineral and fuel resources and technology .
Whilst Americans have squandered their own.