On 12/29/2010 12:54 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 12/28/2010 6:51 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/28/2010 12:10 AM, Hawke wrote:


Funny thing how you never seem to understand what you are being told
unless is it grossly simplified. What you fail to understand is that the
trend, which is clear to anyone with eyes, is that everyone in this
country is getting poorer, is having to get by on less, and is facing a
decline in their standard of living. Except for one small group, the
very well off. Unlike the rest of us they have seen their wealth and
standard of living growing at an extremely high rate. The few very rich
people are getting more and more of the economic pie in America.
Everyone else is having to do with less. You don't seem to see what's
wrong with that. If you are part of the lucky 1% I can understand that.
Are you in the top 1%? If not you need to wake up. And by the way, The
reason for the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer is a
direct result of republican economic policy. See how simple it is?

Hawke

So that's why Obama opposed extending the tax breaks for the rich, isn't
it?

Oh wait, they got extended.

When are you going to realize that wealth controls the system and the
Dem/Rep thing is a circus put on for those as clueless as you are?

David


I'll understand that just as soon as it happens. As of now you might
have noticed which party was ready to do anything it had to so that it
could secure lower taxes on that rich group. It didn't matter that the
tax cut for the rich would increase the deficit by 700 billion. Of
course, a month ago ANYTHING that would add to the deficit was
unacceptable. Except if it's a tax cut for the wealthy.

Like George Soros?

If you think that wealth controls everything just imagine what the
Democrats would do to the rich if the republicans didn't stop them.
Public option in the health care bill. Tax increases for the rich. No
cuts in Social Security or Medicare for regular citizens. Means testing
to keep the rich from getting benefits. No, you're wrong about wealth
controlling the whole system. I agree that the influence of money is
big, and bad. But one party is wholly owned by wealth and business and
it ain't the Democrats. Hell, the Democrats vote to raise taxes on the
rich even when they will pay more in taxes. Nancy Pelosi, Diane
Feinstein, John Kerry, and some other Democrats are very rich and they
want to raise taxes on themselves.

Sure they do. Is there anything they do that you question?

I've never heard a republican do
that. So I'd say you're right that money has too much influence on the
government. But it's not both parties that are equally the slaves of the
rich. The republicans are the kings in that regard.

That circus has an opening for you, sweeping up after the elephants and
horses, not too different from what you're already doing.

David

On 12/29/2010 11:27 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Sure they do. Is there anything they do that you question?


Plenty, just not nearly as much as the republicans. You see, I saw what
the republicans did to us after they were put in charge for 8 years.
Somehow you didn't notice the spot they left the country in when they
got voted out. What was it that kept your attention off the party that
nearly destroyed our economy?

I've never heard a republican do
that. So I'd say you're right that money has too much influence on the
government. But it's not both parties that are equally the slaves of the
rich. The republicans are the kings in that regard.

That circus has an opening for you, sweeping up after the elephants and
horses, not too different from what you're already doing.

David


And you've proved that you're a sucker that has swallowed the hogwash
the republican party has put out for years. You are not one of the
wealthy. The republican party's policies have probably cost you
personally and you still think they're just swell. I guess you need to
be completely destroyed financially for you to see what the republicans
are doing to the ordinary working man. But thanks for proving that many
Americans really are not smart enough for self rule.

Hawke

On 12/31/2010 12:50 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 12/29/2010 11:27 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Sure they do. Is there anything they do that you question?


Plenty, just not nearly as much as the republicans. You see, I saw what
the republicans did to us after they were put in charge for 8 years.
Somehow you didn't notice the spot they left the country in when they
got voted out. What was it that kept your attention off the party that
nearly destroyed our economy?

That was a bipartisan effort.

I've never heard a republican do
that. So I'd say you're right that money has too much influence on the
government. But it's not both parties that are equally the slaves of the
rich. The republicans are the kings in that regard.

That circus has an opening for you, sweeping up after the elephants and
horses, not too different from what you're already doing.

David


And you've proved that you're a sucker that has swallowed the hogwash
the republican party has put out for years. You are not one of the
wealthy. The republican party's policies have probably cost you
personally and you still think they're just swell. I guess you need to
be completely destroyed financially for you to see what the republicans
are doing to the ordinary working man. But thanks for proving that many
Americans really are not smart enough for self rule.

Ding! No soup for you! Didn't you notice the part where I recognized
that the Dem/Reps were a circus for dim bulbs like you, two sides of the
same counterfeit coin?

David

On 12/31/2010 4:04 AM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 12/31/2010 12:50 AM, Hawke wrote:
On 12/29/2010 11:27 AM, David R. Birch wrote:

Sure they do. Is there anything they do that you question?


Plenty, just not nearly as much as the republicans. You see, I saw what
the republicans did to us after they were put in charge for 8 years.
Somehow you didn't notice the spot they left the country in when they
got voted out. What was it that kept your attention off the party that
nearly destroyed our economy?

That was a bipartisan effort.

I've never heard a republican do
that. So I'd say you're right that money has too much influence on the
government. But it's not both parties that are equally the slaves of
the
rich. The republicans are the kings in that regard.

That circus has an opening for you, sweeping up after the elephants and
horses, not too different from what you're already doing.

David


And you've proved that you're a sucker that has swallowed the hogwash
the republican party has put out for years. You are not one of the
wealthy. The republican party's policies have probably cost you
personally and you still think they're just swell. I guess you need to
be completely destroyed financially for you to see what the republicans
are doing to the ordinary working man. But thanks for proving that many
Americans really are not smart enough for self rule.

Ding! No soup for you! Didn't you notice the part where I recognized
that the Dem/Reps were a circus for dim bulbs like you, two sides of the
same counterfeit coin?

David


That's a pretty weak effort at letting the republicans off the hook by
saying that it was both sides that were involved in screwing things up.
I guess that means that Obama care is also a republican backed plan too,
huh?

The facts speak for themselves. It was the republican policies of
2001-2009 that sent the country into the dumpster. It was not with the
help of the Democrats. The fact is the Democrats tried as hard as they
could to stop the republicans from putting in the policies that caused
the economic disaster. But you go ahead and keep thinking it was both
parties that caused the problems. Just don't forget that thinking means
the republicans are equally responsible for everything that the
Democrats do when they are in the majority. I guess if you think both
parties are responsible for everything even when they are against it
then your thinking makes sense. Too bad the truth is both parties are
not responsible for everything. Sometimes one party does what it wants
even when all the members of the other party oppose it.

Hawke