in the 80's
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 5 Aug 2010 18:55 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 06:38:38 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 5, 12:49�am, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > krw wrote: >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> >> >This can be fixed. >> >> >> I don't think it can, after another two years like this one. >> >> >> >Example: Missouri voters overwhelmingly reject Obamacare-- >> >> > �http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c... >> >> >> >We did this. �More to come...stay tuned. >> >> >> Is it meaningful, though. �Or is Holder going to sue MO next? >> >> >Meaningful? �It's a tidal wave. >> >> Obama and his minions haven't been impressed so far. > >The propagandist's job is to make you think that. They're definitely >impressed. Terrified. If that were true Obamacare wouldn't have passed. They would have been thinking of the unemployment lines long before now. >I read last week that 75%(!) of Americans believe their government is >governing against their interest. That is the stuff of revolutions. I'm not buying it. >Several states have had enough--at some point people will just start >ignoring Mr. O's laws. Missouri's at that point, Arizona's >essentially there, Texas, and several other states are close too. >Civil disobedience--MO's just approved it, with more to follow. > >If we keep passing absurd laws that no one's read, no one's going to >follow them either. What are people going to do when their employer drops, or is forced to drop their insurance? What are they going to do when the taxes double? Pay it.
From: dagmargoodboat on 5 Aug 2010 22:55 krw wrote: > dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >krw wrote: > >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >> > krw wrote: > >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> >This can be fixed. > > >> >> I don't think it can, after another two years like this one. > > >> >> >Example: Missouri voters overwhelmingly reject Obamacare-- > >> >> > http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c... > > >> >> >We did this. More to come...stay tuned. > > >> >> Is it meaningful, though. Or is Holder going to sue MO next? > > >> >Meaningful? It's a tidal wave. > > >> Obama and his minions haven't been impressed so far. > > >The propagandist's job is to make you think that. They're definitely > >impressed. Terrified. > > If that were true Obamacare wouldn't have passed. They would have been > thinking of the unemployment lines long before now. Well, they're suicide Democrats. To re-find the article below I Yahoo'd "poll americans government against". The list of hits was amazing--2/3rds of America is against almost all the stuff Obama's doing. > >I read last week that 75%(!) of Americans believe their government is > >governing against their interest. That is the stuff of revolutions. > > I'm not buying it. I didn't say we have a revolution, I said this is the stuff of revolutions... ------- http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed Friday, July 16, 2010 The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American experiment. However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, and 15% are not sure. ------- -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 6 Aug 2010 19:49 On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 19:55:06 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >krw wrote: >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >krw wrote: >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> > krw wrote: >> >> >> dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >This can be fixed. >> >> >> >> I don't think it can, after another two years like this one. >> >> >> >> >Example: Missouri voters overwhelmingly reject Obamacare-- >> >> >> > �http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c847dc7c... >> >> >> >> >We did this. �More to come...stay tuned. >> >> >> >> Is it meaningful, though. �Or is Holder going to sue MO next? >> >> >> >Meaningful? �It's a tidal wave. >> >> >> Obama and his minions haven't been impressed so far. >> >> >The propagandist's job is to make you think that. �They're definitely >> >impressed. �Terrified. >> >> If that were true Obamacare wouldn't have passed. �They would have been >> thinking of the unemployment lines long before now. > >Well, they're suicide Democrats. To re-find the article below I >Yahoo'd "poll americans government against". The list of hits was >amazing--2/3rds of America is against almost all the stuff Obama's >doing. Yet 2/3rds of America isn't against OBAMA. If what you are saying were true, there wouldn't be a safe seat in Congress, this November. >> >I read last week that 75%(!) of Americans believe their government is >> >governing against their interest. �That is the stuff of revolutions. >> >> I'm not buying it. > >I didn't say we have a revolution, I said this is the stuff of >revolutions... The stuff not of revolutions is being well fed, so far. >------- >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2010/23_say_u_s_government_has_the_consent_of_the_governed > >Friday, July 16, 2010 > >The notion that governments derive their only just authority from the >consent of the governed is a foundational principle of the American >experiment. Wonderful in theory. In reality, people are too easily bought with their own money. >However, a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that >just 23% of voters nationwide believe the federal government today has >the consent of the governed. Sixty-two percent (62%) say it does not, >and 15% are not sure. That doesn't seem to be translating into much real change (and I don't mean the hopey kind), however.
From: Richard the Dreaded Libertarian on 6 Aug 2010 19:50 On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:18:25 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:59:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian >>> >>When the 401K first came out, I looked into it, and decided, "What kind of >>numbskull considers 'playing the stock market' to be an 'investment fund?'" >> >>Glad I didn't fall for that scam! ;-) > > So now you're broke. Good thinking. Not because I didn't play the stock market. ;-) Cheers! Rich
From: krw on 6 Aug 2010 21:04
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:50:43 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian <freedom_guy(a)example.net> wrote: >On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:18:25 -0500, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:59:33 -0700, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian >>>> >>>When the 401K first came out, I looked into it, and decided, "What kind of >>>numbskull considers 'playing the stock market' to be an 'investment fund?'" >>> >>>Glad I didn't fall for that scam! ;-) >> >> So now you're broke. Good thinking. > >Not because I didn't play the stock market. ;-) You *are* still broke. If had saved (in a 401K, or whatever) you wouldn't be. |