" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 14:28:32 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:60nbi7lutai7m8dtp67pvaarnfklo66dth@4ax. com:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary
meaning of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other
religions generally share the same values, if you snip out the
wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking
at public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

Bull****. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the
football team prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses
a scout father-son diner being served in a public school?

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in
a movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever
was prior restraint, that is it.

If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What
damage is it really causing them?

Don't change the subject.

I'm not.

Yes you were grin.

We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving
a valedictorian speech or some such.

Or a football team. Or a scout troup. Or...

Those may be different. Is the football team public, then any public
utterance should refrain from religious utterances. The BSA is indeed a
religion-conscious institution, in most cases, although individual troops
may be less so.

That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of
some kind.

Mass hysteria? I'm glad you're a doctor who can diagnose such from
300mi. You're better than House.

There was quite a bit to do about this, and the final consensus was a
case of mass hysteria, as published in several places, 60 minutes as an
example.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning
of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

No it is *NOT*. You said you would "edit" for content. That's prior
restraint.

It is, a speech as an official act at a public school should exhibit
restraint. Period.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

There is nothing protecting you from speech in a public place. OTOH,
you can choose not to listen.

There is nothing (etc, as you say) from an adlibbed speech or even a
prepared speech in a public space, but that is different from an official
speech at a function of a public school.

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely.

No, they do not. They have a right to make that request but other
have no right to shut you up. That *is* censorship (prior restraint).

Again you are missing the point - I am talking about an official speech
at a function of a public school.

E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

You're way over the line. That's reckless endangerment. There is
absolutely *no* comparison between this and religious speech (which
*IS* protected). I suggest a little remedial civics.

I am crying now ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
" wrote:

have a nice day little mousey

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:47:26 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Democrat's heads are safe, anyway.

Amazing stuff.

Indeed they are.

On 31 Jan 2012 12:00:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 14:28:32 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:60nbi7lutai7m8dtp67pvaarnfklo66dth@4ax .com:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary
meaning of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other
religions generally share the same values, if you snip out the
wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking
at public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

Bull****. You want to censor others views. PC is *exactly* that.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

Does it hurt you if I pray for an 'A'? Does it hurt you if the
football team prays for a win? Does it kill you if a pastor blesses
a scout father-son diner being served in a public school?

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in
a movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever
was prior restraint, that is it.

If other don't want to pray, yes, they can simply shut up. What
damage is it really causing them?

Don't change the subject.

I'm not.

Yes you were grin.

Sorry, but it's you who's the king of the red herring.

We were talking about one "representative" of
a group of public high school kids leading the whole group, or giving
a valedictorian speech or some such.

Or a football team. Or a scout troup. Or...

Those may be different. Is the football team public, then any public
utterance should refrain from religious utterances. The BSA is indeed a
religion-conscious institution, in most cases, although individual troops
may be less so.

Musn't have free speech in public, after all. rolls eyes

That's totally different from an
individual mumbling a prayer for him/her self. I have no objection to
that unless it is coercive. Or if it leads to mass hysteria as those
girls in a high school near Buffalo NY, who got into weird tics of
some kind.

Mass hysteria? I'm glad you're a doctor who can diagnose such from
300mi. You're better than House.

There was quite a bit to do about this, and the final consensus was a
case of mass hysteria, as published in several places, 60 minutes as an
example.

60 Minutes?! Now there is an example of perfect research meets perfect
journalism. You're crackin' me up today!

On 31 Jan 2012 12:05:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:34:59 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 30 Jan 2012 02:05:08 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

But you *DID* state that it should be submitted so that you can
censor it. That's called "prior restraint".

Submit it to me as an example and I'll see what I can do to make
your praayer into a not-prayer without changing the summary meaning
of your words. You, me, personally. That's what I meant.

Irrelevant. You believe it speech should be censored.

We live in a generally Judeo-Christian society, and other religions
generally share the same values, if you snip out the wild idiots.

And, yes, IMNSHO there is prior restraint indicated for speaking at
public high schools.

Where do you stop? Remember, this is about prior restraint.

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's views.

No it is *NOT*. You said you would "edit" for content. That's prior
restraint.

It is, a speech as an official act at a public school should exhibit
restraint. Period.

No, it is, by definition, an opinion piece. Limiting one's expressed opinion
is prior restraint.

If
you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your views, go
ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like government is
for everybody.

There is nothing protecting you from speech in a public place. OTOH,
you can choose not to listen.

There is nothing (etc, as you say) from an adlibbed speech or even a
prepared speech in a public space, but that is different from an official
speech at a function of a public school.

A lotta words, no meaning.

If you want to do those things to others, they have the right
to shut you up, politely.

No, they do not. They have a right to make that request but other
have no right to shut you up. That *is* censorship (prior restraint).

Again you are missing the point - I am talking about an official speech
at a function of a public school.

A valedictory speech is not an "official function". It is, by definition, an
editorial.

E.g., you're not supposed to yell fire in a
movie theatre, especially if there is no fire. Now if there ever was
prior restraint, that is it.

You're way over the line. That's reckless endangerment. There is
absolutely *no* comparison between this and religious speech (which
*IS* protected). I suggest a little remedial civics.

I am crying now ...

You lefties do that a *lot*.

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
"Attila.Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...

Disagree, it all is part of having respect for other people's
views. If you want to preach or pray amongst people who share your
views, go ahead, but public schools are for everyone, just like
government is for everybody. If you want to do those things to
others, they have the right to shut you up, politely. E.g., you're
not supposed to yell fire in a movie theatre, especially if there
is no fire. Now if there ever was prior restraint, that is it.


The so-called "respect for other people's views" is nothing but
crude justification for silencing those whose views YOU do not like
It's disingenuous to the point of downright dishonest.
PC )Political Correctness) is nothing but a variant of prior
restraint. Free Speech must include 2 things to be free
1) The only restraint is the one the speaker chooses
voluntarily to avoid being offensive
2) The Speaker can NOT be muzzled to avoid offending others.
PC fails on both counts

PC? what does that have to do with anything?


Not surprised you're clueless about that
At least you're consistent



snip irrelevant anecdote

That type of anecdote (the one you snipped, a valedictorian's address)
was what this was about ...



Another attempt to move the goalpost (again)

On 1/31/2012 5:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?


Because the dead Democrat is still voting. ^_^

TDD

On 2/1/2012 12:34 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2012 5:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each
other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?


Because the dead Democrat is still voting. ^_^

TDD

You from Chicago? We know a dead Democrat is smarter than a live
Republican.

In article ,
Norminn wrote:

Since the first lady always takes such an active role in the Pres.'s
life, I think they should have their own debates....Callista vs
Michelle? I'd pay to see that )

We'll sell the cable rights to Spike (g);

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

On 2/1/2012 7:16 AM, Norminn wrote:
On 2/1/2012 12:34 AM, The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 1/31/2012 5:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each
other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?


Because the dead Democrat is still voting. ^_^

TDD

You from Chicago? We know a dead Democrat is smarter than a live
Republican.


I've always wondered, if Democrats consider themselves to be so smart,
why do they do such stupid things? Republicans disgust me but Democrats
are special, they horrify me. ^_^

TDD

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's
talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:07:11 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's
talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

Not if they're dead.

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:34:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/31/2012 5:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?


Because the dead Democrat is still voting. ^_^

TDD

If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:17:53 -0500, Norminn
wrote:

Since the first lady always takes such an active role in the Pres.'s
life, I think they should have their own debates....Callista vs
Michelle? I'd pay to see that )

Which one wears a dress from Target or bling from Tiffany?

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:07:11 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Oren

wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's
talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

Not if they're dead.

even if they're dead...they wouldn't be near the swamps when alive, so the only
way to be there dead would be to have republican grave-robbers do their stuff

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:10:48 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Oren
wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:07:11 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article , Oren

wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's
talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

Not if they're dead.

even if they're dead...they wouldn't be near the swamps when alive, so the only
way to be there dead would be to have republican grave-robbers do their stuff

No. Kill them on-site, leave for the gator, only to find out later
gators don't eat Democrats. Even gators have good taste.

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:15:22 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 08:17:53 -0500, Norminn
wrote:

Since the first lady always takes such an active role in the Pres.'s
life, I think they should have their own debates....Callista vs
Michelle? I'd pay to see that )

Which one wears a dress from Target or bling from Tiffany?

Dunno, but they're a lot alike; Callista has $700,000 worth of jewelry and
Michelle has $50,000 in underwear (I suppose it takes a lot of cloth...).

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:07:54 -0800, Oren wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:34:40 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 1/31/2012 5:47 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:27:41 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

It's no surprise that all lefties know how to do is read each other's talking
points. You don't know what it means either.

of course I do. what I love about you rightards is that when you don't
understand something you blame everyone else

Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?


Because the dead Democrat is still voting. ^_^

TDD

If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
....we'll make more."

In article ,
" wrote:

If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

In article , Oren
wrote:


Did you know an alligator will not eat a dead Democrat?

Amazing stuff.

apparently democrats have enough sense to avoid swamps

Not if they're dead.

even if they're dead...they wouldn't be near the swamps when alive, so the
only
way to be there dead would be to have republican grave-robbers do their
stuff

No. Kill them on-site, leave for the gator, only to find out later
gators don't eat Democrats. Even gators have good taste.

as I said, democrats are smart enough to avoid swamps

On Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:52:37 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:20:09 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

Is that the best you've got? I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:20:09 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

Is that the best you've got?

no. but what makes you think you are deserving of anything better?


I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

smart enough to not vote republican

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 15:35:51 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:20:09 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

Is that the best you've got?

no. but what makes you think you are deserving of anything better?

Why are you here, again?

I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

smart enough to not vote republican

You lose, again.

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

Is that the best you've got?

no. but what makes you think you are deserving of anything better?

Why are you here, again?

again? I'm always here


I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

smart enough to not vote republican

You lose, again.

and I bet that somehow you think that makes you a winner

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:49:03 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:


If you find yourself in a swamp surrounded by Democrats and
alligators, the prudent thing to do is drain the swamp.

It don't work with congress critters.

"Drain all you want...
...we'll make more."

but do make sure we aren't regulated

I'm sure you aren't regular.

but then again, what do you know?

I know you're full of ****. QED

oh mousey,

I'm so hurt I shall never get over this inflammatory statement

you don't even know what it means. LOL

Is that the best you've got?

no. but what makes you think you are deserving of anything better?

Why are you here, again?

again? I'm always here

Always stupid, too.

I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

smart enough to not vote republican

You lose, again.

and I bet that somehow you think that makes you a winner

Irrelevant, idiot. You're a loser.

In article ,
" wrote:




Always stupid, too.

indeed you are, but there's really no need for you to continually demonstrate it
to us.


I suppose so. Lefties aren't very bright.

smart enough to not vote republican

You lose, again.

and I bet that somehow you think that makes you a winner and an
Irrelevant, idiot. You're a loser.

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:03:58 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:




Always stupid, too.

indeed you are, but there's really no need for you to continually demonstrate it
to us.

Back to your only argument, IKWYABWAI. Sad, but someone has to be a
Demonicrat, I suppose.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 05 Feb 2012 12:03:58 -0800, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
wrote:

In article ,
" wrote:




Always stupid, too.

indeed you are, but there's really no need for you to continually
demonstrate it
to us.

Back to your only argument, IKWYABWAI. Sad, but someone has to be a
Demonicrat, I suppose.

"I suppose" the war cry of the repubs...never sure enough about others to
actually have a solid opinion.

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 03:14:36 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:




The money we've all paid in taxes to build the Interstate Highway System has
also helped make the owners of companies like UPS and Fedex very wealthy.
The ability to earn enormous amounts of money depends heavily on the
infrastructure of the country. An efficient road system, waterways
maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers, communications networks, the
electrical grid, courts, police and even a military to protect overseas
investments are essential to huge companies prospering in America.

The ready access to this stable and very lucrative market is extremely
valuable to those with vast business empires. It helped the uber-rich to
acquire and maintain their great wealth. Why shouldn't they pay for the
bulk of it since they've received the bulk of the benefits?

I agree, but you know what actually happens. UPS will raise their
rates to cover it and that toaster you order from Amazon will have
another $1 added for shipping. Corporations do not pay taxes, their
customers do.






It was people like Mitt and Bain Capital that have been responsible
for some very bad changes in America. In 1980, 65 percent of recent
high-school graduates working in the private sector had health benefits,
but, by 2009, that was down to 29 percent. That's the work of buyout kings
like Mitt.

There probably isn't a working person here in AHR that hasn't seen his wages
or benefits cut in the last 20 years. That's NOT the direction a prospering
nation should be headed. Mitt's enormous wealth in part comes from
"helping" millions of Americans getting worse and worse deals from their
employers. Fire workers? Your stock goes up! Cut their benefits? Your
stock goes up! Lower their wages? Your stock goes up!

Hey, he worked hard to get that $100 million trust fund. That is,
IMO, one of the biggest stumbling blocks to his winning the
nomination. Joe Sixpack does not relate to him very well.

Common sense is no longer common. Glad someone still has sense.

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

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

I agree, but you know what actually happens. UPS will raise their
rates to cover it and that toaster you order from Amazon will have
another $1 added for shipping. Corporations do not pay taxes, their
customers do.

Man of which color? His Dad's, or his Mom's? Me, well, I don't care if he's
half pink. I don't like socialists.

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

"John Carter" wrote in message
.. .

The Republicans just can't stand it that they were defeated in 2008
and by a man of color and there is nothing the President can say or
do to reverse that thinking.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Man of which color? His Dad's, or his Mom's?

You know exactly what color. (it's the color Republicans have on
theor mind, but won't dare say it)


Me, well, I don't
care if he's half pink. I don't like socialists.


call it another name.


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

"John Carter" wrote in message
.. .

The Republicans just can't stand it that they were defeated in
2008 and by a man of color and there is nothing the President can
say or do to reverse that thinking.

"John Carter" wrote in message
.. .
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Man of which color? His Dad's, or his Mom's?

You know exactly what color. (it's the color Republicans have on
theor mind, but won't dare say it)

CY: How would you know what Repubs are thinking? As for me, I just don't
like socialists.

Me, well, I don't
care if he's half pink. I don't like socialists.


call it another name.
CY: I don't like fascists.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

"John Carter" wrote in message
.. .
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Man of which color? His Dad's, or his Mom's?

You know exactly what color. (it's the color Republicans have on
theor mind, but won't dare say it)

CY: How would you know what Repubs are thinking? As for me, I just
don't like socialists.

Me, well, I don't
care if he's half pink. I don't like socialists.


call it another name.
CY: I don't like fascists.


Fascist, socialis, in this case if you don't want to be called a
recist, then pick another reason to hate the man. There has been NO
evidence of either socialist or fascist behavior in this
administration.

Detractors may want to put a socialist spin on efforts to provide
necessary assistance to this country's disappearing middle class and
impoverished people, but even with thise programs, the US is still
way down the list in quality of life lower than a number of
recognized socialist countries.

As for the fascist spin, the evangelical right is the poster child
for fascism - especially when they say jump and the Republican party
says how high and onto who?

You appear to be out of touch with reality. I guess it's time for me to stop
wasting my time talking to you. Bye.

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

"John Carter" wrote in message
...

Fascist, socialis, in this case if you don't want to be called a
recist, then pick another reason to hate the man. There has been NO
evidence of either socialist or fascist behavior in this
administration.

In article ,
John Carter wrote:

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

Man of which color? His Dad's, or his Mom's?

You know exactly what color. (it's the color Republicans have on
theor mind, but won't dare say it)

Mind reader are we?

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