"K.T. Couric" wrote in
:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


President of what?


The hair club for men???

After all from what I've heard she is into rugs.....

Bill

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:15:38 -0600, Bill wrote:

"K.T. Couric" wrote in
m:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


President of what?


The hair club for men???

After all from what I've heard she is into rugs.....

Bill


A regular carpet muncher she is.

Gunner

Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional,
illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an
unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the
proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:54:49 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:15:38 -0600, Bill wrote:

"K.T. Couric" wrote in
om:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


President of what?


The hair club for men???

After all from what I've heard she is into rugs.....

Bill


A regular carpet muncher she is.

"Aren't we all?" he asked, while licking his eyebrows.

Have you heard of the Hillary Meal at Colonel Cluck's?
It consists of two left wings, two small breasts, and two large
thighs.

--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

Larry Jaques wrote:

Have you heard of the Hillary Meal at Colonel Cluck's?
It consists of two left wings, two small breasts, and two large
thighs.

No scratch-off cattle futures contract???

Bill Schwab wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Have you heard of the Hillary Meal at Colonel Cluck's?
It consists of two left wings, two small breasts, and two large
thighs.


No scratch-off cattle futures contract???


You guys go ahead and make fun of her.

Will the democrats offer a black man, or a white woman?

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:41:51 -0800, SteveB wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Will the democrats offer a black man, or a white woman?

Pity is, that's all they got.
A sobering statement on the sad state of affairs.

Not so much that it's "a" black man and "a" white woman, obviously
neither of those factors alone mean much of anything. But, it's the
particular two folks we're talking about that make it so sad.

No wonder we are the laughingstock of the world. We earned it.

So, is Fred Thompson doing nothing at all, or is the press just ignoring
him in droves? I suspect the latter?

So, is Fred Thompson doing nothing at all, or is the press just ignoring
him in droves? I suspect the latter?

Thompson just made a MAJOR move today. he's going to get the endorsement of
the religious right within the party. Its a fact that you can't get a
nomination to any office within the republican party if the religious right
is against you. I'll bet right now that his campaign takes off like a
rocket.

Karl

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Bill Schwab wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote:

Have you heard of the Hillary Meal at Colonel Cluck's?
It consists of two left wings, two small breasts, and two large
thighs.


No scratch-off cattle futures contract???


You guys go ahead and make fun of her.

Will the democrats offer a black man, or a white woman?


Pity is, that's all they got.

A sobering statement on the sad state of affairs.

No wonder we are the laughingstock of the world. We earned it.

Steve

"Karl Townsend" wrote in message
anews.com...


So, is Fred Thompson doing nothing at all, or is the press just ignoring
him in droves? I suspect the latter?

Thompson just made a MAJOR move today. he's going to get the endorsement
of the religious right within the party. Its a fact that you can't get a
nomination to any office within the republican party if the religious
right is against you. I'll bet right now that his campaign takes off like
a rocket.

The day that Fred Thompson does *anything* like a rocket will be the day
that elephants fly. He may be lazier than Ronnie was.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:35:56 -0600, Karl Townsend wrote:


So, is Fred Thompson doing nothing at all, or is the press just ignoring
him in droves? I suspect the latter?

Thompson just made a MAJOR move today. he's going to get the endorsement of
the religious right within the party. Its a fact that you can't get a
nomination to any office within the republican party if the religious right
is against you. I'll bet right now that his campaign takes off like a
rocket.

Good. He agrees with me on my single and only issue (gun control, as
in, bad idea), so I'll vote for him given the chance.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:53:43 -0800, SteveB wrote:

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate) choices
we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

****, I'd vote for Gunner for president, and I've never heard him speak.
But, given the parade of yahoos this time, yet again, the idiots on the
right are less evil than the idiots on the left. The idiots on the left
want to disarm me, you see, which threatens my physical well being _and_
my retirement plan (seen the appreciation curve on M1903 Springfields?
I have.). At least the idiots on the right only are a threat to me if I
decide to become a muslim and blow up innocent people.

And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

Well, to be fair, both of 'em are the equivalent to Usenet Trolls.

And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug tested.
And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually believe
their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

I was sorely dissapointed in the Bush/Kerry debates last time around,
when Bush let Kerry get away with 5 or 6 blatant lies. Why the fark
didn't he call him on the carpet right then?

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.
We're ****ed.

Not sure I disagree. I guess we should pick the single issue we care
the most about and vote accordingly. In my case it's the right of
non-criminals to own guns to defend themselves against criminals.
Others may care more about other (secondary) things more, I suppose.

"SteveB" wrote in message
...
You know, I used to hear all this prattle about a small group of men
somewhere in the world who ran everything. One World Order.
Trilateralist Comission. Buildabergers. Different names on different
days depending on the purity of the drugs available on THAT day.

Masons, Daughters of the American Revolution...


And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate)
choices we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

We've scared all the good candidates off. You can't even get a blowjob in
the White House these days without somebody giving you a bad time about it.
Would Kennedy have run, if he had to face what presidents face now? Ha! No
way, Hose-A.


Either something is wrong with the system, or there ARE a small group of
fat bald men sitting in a room somewhere in the world smoking cigars and
drinking $3,000 bottles of cognac and deciding which way the world will
go.

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney are NOT bald. They're just somewhat follicly
challenged.


I get more discouraged, more paranoid, and more pessimistic every day.

You need better drugs.


And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

Well, that would depress your car's spare tire. Shoot the radio and turn off
the TV.


And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug
tested. And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually
believe their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

Don't worry, they don't believe a word of it.


We have some people actually out there fighting on the front lines. And
then we have some here who sit in their La-Z-Boys and talk a good fight
yet have never been in one.

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.

We're ****ed.

Steve

Jeez, Steve, cheer up. You need to be in good spirits and full of energy so
we can work to pay off the national debt. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

For the first time in my life, and I am 71 years old, I have donated to a
political party. In my mind the two party system has boiled itself down to
the DemocranRepublicrats or the Libertarians. I finally have a choice. I
sent $100 to the Ron Paul campaign. I was thinking that he didn't have a
snowball chance in hell of getting elected, but even if he doesn't get
elected but makes a gigantic showing, the other politicians that there is a
growing bunch of active people that are damned dissatisfied with the status
quo. Hell with the exception of his "Right to Life" leanings, I agree with
him down the line. Further the Libertarian party is the only one that quite
frankly states its philosophy and what is sees as Good.
I hope that Ron Paul, if he doesn't get elected makes enough noise to wake
up some of the idiots that allow things like Hillary's $1Mill to a Woodstock
Museum and that is a small freckle compared to the total of the special
interest add-ons that float thru the palace occupied by our
"Representatives".
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:53:43 -0800, SteveB
wrote:

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I
just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate)
choices
we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

****, I'd vote for Gunner for president, and I've never heard him speak.
But, given the parade of yahoos this time, yet again, the idiots on the
right are less evil than the idiots on the left. The idiots on the left
want to disarm me, you see, which threatens my physical well being _and_
my retirement plan (seen the appreciation curve on M1903 Springfields?
I have.). At least the idiots on the right only are a threat to me if I
decide to become a muslim and blow up innocent people.

And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

Well, to be fair, both of 'em are the equivalent to Usenet Trolls.

And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug
tested.
And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually believe
their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

I was sorely dissapointed in the Bush/Kerry debates last time around,
when Bush let Kerry get away with 5 or 6 blatant lies. Why the fark
didn't he call him on the carpet right then?

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.
We're ****ed.

Not sure I disagree. I guess we should pick the single issue we care
the most about and vote accordingly. In my case it's the right of
non-criminals to own guns to defend themselves against criminals.
Others may care more about other (secondary) things more, I suppose.

You know, I used to hear all this prattle about a small group of men
somewhere in the world who ran everything. One World Order. Trilateralist
Comission. Buildabergers. Different names on different days depending on
the purity of the drugs available on THAT day.

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate) choices
we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

Either something is wrong with the system, or there ARE a small group of fat
bald men sitting in a room somewhere in the world smoking cigars and
drinking $3,000 bottles of cognac and deciding which way the world will go.

I get more discouraged, more paranoid, and more pessimistic every day.

And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug tested.
And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually believe
their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

We have some people actually out there fighting on the front lines. And
then we have some here who sit in their La-Z-Boys and talk a good fight yet
have never been in one.

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.

We're ****ed.

Steve

"SteveB" wrote in message
news
snip

All my life, I have been a REGISTERED libertarian. I know that the two
percent of us aren't going to elect a president, but if a man doesn't
declare what he stands for, he isn't much of a man. If we were to get
back to the original intent of our founders, observe state and federal
boundaries, stick to the original definitions of what the federal
government can and can NOT do, the world would be in chaos for a time, but
then, come into balance again. There is no balance today.

Why would a libertarian declare a party affiliation when he registers? Isn't
that a case of the government invading your privacy?

I know, it's hard being a virgin... d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

SteveB wrote:
You know, I used to hear all this prattle about a small group of men
somewhere in the world who ran everything. One World Order. Trilateralist
Comission. Buildabergers. Different names on different days depending on
the purity of the drugs available on THAT day.

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate) choices
we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

Either something is wrong with the system, or there ARE a small group of fat
bald men sitting in a room somewhere in the world smoking cigars and
drinking $3,000 bottles of cognac and deciding which way the world will go.

I get more discouraged, more paranoid, and more pessimistic every day.

And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug tested.
And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually believe
their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

We have some people actually out there fighting on the front lines. And
then we have some here who sit in their La-Z-Boys and talk a good fight yet
have never been in one.

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.

We're ****ed.

Steve



Life's a bitch....Don't vote for one in 2008!
(Shamelessly copied from a bumper sticker that I was sent)

Jim Chandler

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .
For the first time in my life, and I am 71 years old, I have donated to a
political party. In my mind the two party system has boiled itself down
to the DemocranRepublicrats or the Libertarians. I finally have a choice.
I sent $100 to the Ron Paul campaign. I was thinking that he didn't have
a snowball chance in hell of getting elected, but even if he doesn't get
elected but makes a gigantic showing, the other politicians that there is
a growing bunch of active people that are damned dissatisfied with the
status quo. Hell with the exception of his "Right to Life" leanings, I
agree with him down the line. Further the Libertarian party is the only
one that quite frankly states its philosophy and what is sees as Good.
I hope that Ron Paul, if he doesn't get elected makes enough noise to wake
up some of the idiots that allow things like Hillary's $1Mill to a
Woodstock Museum and that is a small freckle compared to the total of the
special interest add-ons that float thru the palace occupied by our
"Representatives".

All my life, I have been a REGISTERED libertarian. I know that the two
percent of us aren't going to elect a president, but if a man doesn't
declare what he stands for, he isn't much of a man. If we were to get back
to the original intent of our founders, observe state and federal
boundaries, stick to the original definitions of what the federal government
can and can NOT do, the world would be in chaos for a time, but then, come
into balance again. There is no balance today.

Steve

"Jim Chandler" wrote in message
news:Uk9_i.5174$VB6.3932@trnddc06...
SteveB wrote:
You know, I used to hear all this prattle about a small group of men
somewhere in the world who ran everything. One World Order.
Trilateralist Comission. Buildabergers. Different names on different
days depending on the purity of the drugs available on THAT day.

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I
just can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate)
choices we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

Either something is wrong with the system, or there ARE a small group of
fat bald men sitting in a room somewhere in the world smoking cigars and
drinking $3,000 bottles of cognac and deciding which way the world will
go.

I get more discouraged, more paranoid, and more pessimistic every day.

And then I listen to Rush and Hannity and I get MORE depressed.

And then I listen to the candidates and wonder why they are not drug
tested. And then I think if they do come back negative, do they actually
believe their own spew, and that makes me even more scared.

We have some people actually out there fighting on the front lines. And
then we have some here who sit in their La-Z-Boys and talk a good fight
yet have never been in one.

I'm mad as hell, and I won't take it any more.

We're ****ed.

Steve

Life's a bitch....Don't vote for one in 2008!
(Shamelessly copied from a bumper sticker that I was sent)

Jim Chandler

At the last strike in a union I USED to belong to, the offer was pitiful.
No guarantee of health care, and other obvious glaring shortcomings. I
thought, "Who would be stupid enough to vote for this?"

The contract passed, and I thought the boxes had been stuffed. Upon
returning to work and asking around, I discovered that there were a LOT of
people who were stupid enough to vote for it.

I hope it is not the case for Hillary.

She can't even handle a debate without going estrogenic. What's she going
to do in a battle situation? Wait, I KNOW what she's going to do. She's
going to break down and cry and shriek.

And the rest of the US will just sit and wait for the nuclear winter.

She's a clown and needs a larger clown suit than she has. At least if she
wore a clown suit, it would play down those horrendous thighs.
Yeccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

At the last strike in a union I USED to belong to, the offer was pitiful.
No guarantee of health care, and other obvious glaring shortcomings. I
thought, "Who would be stupid enough to vote for this?"

The contract passed, and I thought the boxes had been stuffed. Upon
returning to work and asking around, I discovered that there were a LOT of
people who were stupid enough to vote for it.

I hope it is not the case for Hillary.


THere, in a nutshell, is he scariest thing I can think of...



She can't even handle a debate without going estrogenic. What's she going
to do in a battle situation? Wait, I KNOW what she's going to do. She's
going to break down and cry and shriek.

And the rest of the US will just sit and wait for the nuclear winter.

She's a clown and needs a larger clown suit than she has. At least if she
wore a clown suit, it would play down those horrendous thighs.
Yeccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Steve

In article , "SteveB" wrote:

And now, looking at the dismal (and I use that word loosely because I just
can't think of probably six or eight more that would be appropriate) choices
we have in BOTH the Dem and Pubic choices.

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

To put this in perspective, though, I'm reminded of an editorial cartoon I saw
during the 1976 presidential primaries. The candidates are gathered on a stage
for a debate, and in the wings, in typical 18th-century garb, stand Benjamin
Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Franklin is doubled over in laughter, pointing
at the group with one hand and clutching his side with the other, as Jefferson
looks on sadly, saying "Well, Franklin, after two hundred years, there they
a the candidates for President of the United States."

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:19:15 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" wrote in message
news
snip

All my life, I have been a REGISTERED libertarian. I know that the two
percent of us aren't going to elect a president, but if a man doesn't
declare what he stands for, he isn't much of a man. If we were to get
back to the original intent of our founders, observe state and federal
boundaries, stick to the original definitions of what the federal
government can and can NOT do, the world would be in chaos for a time, but
then, come into balance again. There is no balance today.

Why would a libertarian declare a party affiliation when he registers? Isn't
that a case of the government invading your privacy?

I know, it's hard being a virgin... d8-)

Oh, Ed. You're just ****ed because the last two Rep presidents were,
erm, less than pristine. Had you joined me (and nearly 20 million
others) in putting Perot in office in '92, there might be less to
worry about these years (and I mean that in a GOOD way.) I guarantee
that the status quo wouldn't have held with him there and with so many
of the people fired up for the first time in nearly 200 years...

--
Real freedom lies in wildness, not in civilization.
-- Charles Lindbergh

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:19:15 -0500, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"SteveB" wrote in message
news
snip

All my life, I have been a REGISTERED libertarian. I know that the two
percent of us aren't going to elect a president, but if a man doesn't
declare what he stands for, he isn't much of a man. If we were to get
back to the original intent of our founders, observe state and federal
boundaries, stick to the original definitions of what the federal
government can and can NOT do, the world would be in chaos for a time,
but
then, come into balance again. There is no balance today.

Why would a libertarian declare a party affiliation when he registers?
Isn't
that a case of the government invading your privacy?

I know, it's hard being a virgin... d8-)

Oh, Ed. You're just ****ed because the last two Rep presidents were,
erm, less than pristine. Had you joined me (and nearly 20 million
others) in putting Perot in office in '92, there might be less to
worry about these years (and I mean that in a GOOD way.) I guarantee
that the status quo wouldn't have held with him there and with so many
of the people fired up for the first time in nearly 200 years...

Between his desire for more trade protectionism and his "war" on drugs, I'm
surprised that a libertarian would find him tolerable.

My guess is you'll vote for anyone who isn't a Republican or Democrat,
right? How about the Futilism Party? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"cavelamb himself" wrote


The contract passed, and I thought the boxes had been stuffed. Upon
returning to work and asking around, I discovered that there were a LOT
of people who were stupid enough to vote for it.

I hope it is not the case for Hillary.


THere, in a nutshell, is he scariest thing I can think of...

Hillary is self destructing as we speak. Those who forgot about the
Klintons and what they did are now waking up. Say what you will about Rush
and Hannity, at least they are keeping their crooked behavior in the
spotlight. Those two may sway this election. We are headed towards
socialism. If Hillary makes it to the White House, we will make it.

Steve

All my life, I have been a REGISTERED libertarian. I know that the two
percent of us aren't going to elect a president, but if a man doesn't
declare what he stands for, he isn't much of a man.
I was one of the people that voted Perot back then. I also thought that
voting for the best candidate was a good thing. But that also resulted
in us getting ****ed by the Clintons ever since, so he is also the last
candidate that I actually voted FOR. Today, unfortunately, you must
place your vote AGAINST the candidate that you think will do the most
damage to this country. The bottom of the barrel has a couple of layers
of scum, and that is where our current politicians seem to be coming
from. We are so screwed!

If we were to get
back to the original intent of our founders, observe state and federal
boundaries, stick to the original definitions of what the federal
government can and can NOT do, the world would be in chaos for a time,
but
then, come into balance again. There is no balance today.

No balance for certain. The right wing wacko's of today are even more
to the left of the left wingers of 20 years ago. The pendulum has swung
so far to the left that it is about to tip over and crash.

I have been listening to some of the debates for the current crop of
candidates and all I can see is a massive crop failure. This coming
election, as in the past few elections, I see no one to vote FOR, only
socialists to vote AGAINST. Both parties have become socialist and
there isn't really enough of a difference between the R's and D's to
matter much. We are screwed regardless.

The first debate that I listened to, I was listening to Ron Paul and I
was liking what he said. Then he started talking about the middle east
and immediately lost my vote. I have heard some things that Tom
Tancredo has said that I like. And I have heard some things that Mike
Huckabee said that I like. But they have also said a lot more that I
don't like. As for Democrats, I can even find a few things they say
that I like, but there is just much more NOT to like.

Not one candidate is ready to eliminate the programs that the FEDERAL
government has no business running. Social Security, Medicare, welfare,
education, arts, and state aid just to name a very few that the FEDERAL
government should eliminate. Not one of them is talking about returning
the US to a producing economy rather than a consumer economy. All I am
hearing is more government intrusion and more of our rights and civil
liberties going bye bye.

We are screwed.


Wayne

SteveB wrote:

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

Either something is wrong with the system,

Steve
(with a lot of cutting)

The phenomenon is directly a result of, any one that would be a good
canditate is intelligent enough to not put up with the crap that
the media requires to get noticed. (or something like that )
...lew...

Larry Jaques wrote:
Oh, Ed. You're just ****ed because the last two Rep presidents were,
erm, less than pristine. Had you joined me (and nearly 20 million
others) in putting Perot in office in '92, there might be less to
worry about these years (and I mean that in a GOOD way.) I guarantee
that the status quo wouldn't have held with him there and with so many
of the people fired up for the first time in nearly 200 years...


Well I voted for Ross and for Barry. The whole system is rotten.
About the only other systems broken as bad are the juducial
and the educational.
You have heard that the indian caught in Abq, drunk driving
did about 200,000 damage and is imune from prosecution because
the tribe is a "sovern nation". (he was driving a pueblo vehicle)
Talk about broked systems. :-(
...lew...

"Lew Hartswick" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

Is the best we got? We have come centuries, and this is the best we can
come up with as leaders? If our forefathers were here, they would be
beating us with freshly cut tree branches, and I mean that. We are a
DISAPPOINTMENT of the highest magnitude.

Either something is wrong with the system,

Steve
(with a lot of cutting)

The phenomenon is directly a result of, any one that would be a good
canditate is intelligent enough to not put up with the crap that
the media requires to get noticed. (or something like that )
...lew...

And what CEO would want to take that big of a cut in pay and put up with
having to get everything okayed by the likes of (names of legislators
deleted) to get anything done. The people who are best qualified to run our
country are busy being truck drivers and hairdressers. Those who know you
have only so much money coming in, and when that's gone, it's gone.

Steve

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:54:49 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:15:38 -0600, Bill wrote:

"K.T. Couric" wrote in
om:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


President of what?


The hair club for men???

After all from what I've heard she is into rugs.....

Bill


A regular carpet muncher she is.

Gunner

Would the munchee be Alice Walton? Anyone else heard that?

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 10:54:49 -0800, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 12:15:38 -0600, Bill wrote:

"K.T. Couric" wrote in
news:NaWdnXFqp7CD9aXanZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews. com:

In article ,
cavelamb himself wrote:


President of what?


The hair club for men???

After all from what I've heard she is into rugs.....

Bill


A regular carpet muncher she is.

Gunner

Would the munchee be Alice Walton? Anyone else heard that?

Old jokes:

What do the Clintons use for birth control?
A picture of Chelsea.

What caused Hillary to go lesbian?
Bill.

Steve

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:52:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
Between his desire for more trade protectionism and his "war" on drugs, I'm
surprised that a libertarian would find him tolerable.
snip
Jefferson said the government that governs least, governs best.

A libertarian stands for limited government; an anarchist wants
no government at all. From the news reports it is clear that
anarchy is not a viable option as "someone" soon takes charge.

Governments, assuming they wish to remain in power, *MUST* supply
or insure the supply of basic goods and services such as adequate
food, shelter and clothing, secure borders, and internal
security. Those that fail to do so, even with highly developed
organs of control/repression such as the USSR are living on
borrowed time, although their collapse may be prevented for a
while by shedding rivers of their own peoples blood.

Ideology can and frequently does kill large numbers of people,
for example the drive for industrialization and the famine in the
Ukraine. [I am deliberately using historical references to avoid
another p****ng contest, there are more modern examples to be
sure.]

Ron Paul [I think] recognizes that not everything is a question
of economics [or more exactly short term profit], and the U.S.
Constitution and/or general party platform is not a "suicide
pact."

History clearly shows that any nation state that wishes to remain
sovereign and independent *MUST* maintain the ability to feed and
cloth its people and armed forces at an adequate level, obtain
adequate arms for internal/external security, etc.

History also shows that the only way to do this is have as
adequate amounts of this capacity under the national control.
Consider that England nearly lost WW2 because of food shortages.
Another 50 or 100 U-boats at the start of the war, concentrating
on the food convoys would have spelled disaster. Fuel would have
run a very close second, and indeed may have had a larger impact
as this would have impacted not only motorized defense [aircraft]
but also motorized agriculture.

Therefore economic/trade protectionism of critical economic
sectors/levels is fully justified as a vital national defense
issue. The question is what are the critical sectors and levels.

I fully agree the "war on drugs" has been, and is being badly
mishandled, but again the historical record of what happened to
China with the consumption of opium grown in India and sold by
international "traders" in violation of Chinese law shows this to
be too great a danger, apparently far greater than alcohol.

Several writers have suggested that export of opium to China was
deliberate to offset the huge balance of trade deficits [in
silver] the western countries were experiencing at that time
because of the demand for silks, porcelains, etc.

In one sense the same thing is occurring now where the major
producing/exporting countries such as Columbia and Afghanistan,
are offsetting the one way trade with the US. As such this is
simply asymetrical economic warfare.

Indeed, this is equivalent to suggesting that Ron Paul is not a
true libertarian because he opposes the reintroduction of
slavery.

Addiction to one of the harder drugs such as meth/crank or crack
is functionally equivalent to indentured servitude, and
unfortunately anecdotal evidence indicates that a *SINGLE*
exposure is enough to create addiction.

Western civilization is on the ragged edge anyhow, and we cannot
tolerate the additional stresses of huge numbers of morons, and
large numbers of berserkers created by other classes of drugs
such as the PCPs [angle dust].

IMNSHO *THE* problem is the failure to rationally and
objectiverly evaluate ["reefer madness" anyone?] the threats
illegal recreational substances present and allocate the
available resources accordingly. Attempting to stamp out medical
marijuana sales in California while crack and crank continue to
be sold openly in the inner cities is neither efficient nor
effective.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.