O. T. Hmmmmmm
 

Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!

Oh my gosh, you mean Kerry is just as guilty as Bush in his political ads.

Gould told me that Bush was the only one who did that.


"RGrew176" wrote in message
...
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to
help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium
ncrease -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into
effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to
reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

Which is primarily what the Democrats rely on.

It's bothersome to watch the process. The DNC and the Kerry campaign are
revisiting the successful strategy of the Democrat Party of the 70s. They
are conducting massive voter registration drives among the most
disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments of our society by
spreading lies and promising whatever it takes. It worked then, it may well
work again, and we'll again have the inmates running the asylum, and the
sycophants writing checks on the treasury.

"RGrew176" wrote in message
...
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to
help
Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium
ncrease -
the biggest in history"? That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

It was found to be so amazing that someone did some homework on the issue.
As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was
mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton,
voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into
effect
during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to
reverse
what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton
administration.

Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people.

Don't be duped by his misstatement of facts!


Haven't the Repuglicans controlled the House and Senate for the past two
years with Bush (asleep) at the helm? Why didn't they vote to roll back the
increase? My guess is there aren't enough millionaires on Medicare to do
the lobbying.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Uh...you have no solid ground on which to stand

Ummm... You say I have no solid basis, then regurgitate your standard
insults re GWB. I note that you did not deny or refute my statements.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message


It's your boy Bush and the GOP majorities in Congress who are spending
like drunken sailors, and refusing to pay the bills.

A fine Democrat...... avoid the issue and refuse to address the point.

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 12:37:00 -0400, John Gaquin wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message

That ad is a stoke of genius on Kerry's part and
will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

Which is primarily what the Democrats rely on.

It's bothersome to watch the process. The DNC and the Kerry campaign
are revisiting the successful strategy of the Democrat Party of the 70s.
They are conducting massive voter registration drives among the most
disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments of our society by
spreading lies and promising whatever it takes. It worked then, it may
well work again, and we'll again have the inmates running the asylum,
and the sycophants writing checks on the treasury.

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right to
vote? The policies of the next administration will effect them, perhaps
more than most. Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive. You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes *should*
count.

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes *should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to own
issues, not resolve them.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right
to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all
the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and
tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes
*should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a
huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to
own
issues, not resolve them.

But of course, this country is not a democracy......rather it is a
consitutionally limited republic.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.

"P. Fritz" wrote in message ...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message

Geez guy, if you don't like democracy, move. Why shouldn't those
"disinterested, uninformed, and unproductive segments" have the right
to
vote?

I never said they shouldn't.

Perhaps, by taking the effort to register, they would
become less disinterested, more informed, and more productive.

Doubtful. If they were interested, they would already be participants.
This is just the modern day version of the Dem machines of the 1930s,
wherein ward hacks would ride around on election day and gather up all
the
bums they could find, slip each one a finn, drive him to the polls, and
tell
him "Vote for Curley".


You may not
like it, but it is a fundamental concept to democracy, all votes
*should*
count.

I don't dislike it at all, and again, I never said these votes shouldn't
count. I merely point out that the Dems don't give 2 ****es about these
folks until they need 20 or 30,000 votes some year, then they ramrod a
huge
voter drive and promptly drop things after the election. Dems want to
own
issues, not resolve them.

But of course, this country is not a democracy......rather it is a
consitutionally limited republic.

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.

That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not in a
401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three times
our net worth because we are lawyer bait. AND we are being taxed to death
without fair representation. I have property in three countys and can only
vote in one countys local election. How do I insure the other two countys
are being run efficently or honest.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only
property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working
all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on
in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not
in a
401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three
times
our net worth because we are lawyer bait. AND we are being taxed to
death
without fair representation. I have property in three countys and can
only
vote in one countys local election. How do I insure the other two
countys
are being run efficently or honest.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services
on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for
vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to
me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is
not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

Generally speaking, the principle in this country is that you have one
legal residence, and you get to vote where you live...that is, where
your legal residence is located. There's no reason to change that. One
person, one vote.

If you want to vote in a county where you have property but don't live,
I suggest you move there. We have property in Virginia and Florida, but
don't vote in those states.

Why not, you should have representation in those countys where at a min you
have a residence. Having to declare only one home a residence makes things
simple for the federal level but is blatently UNFAIR to you on the local
level.

Renters, by the way, also pay real estate taxes, though indirectly. But
they still pay them.

Yes and they generally live where they rent so it's a non-issue.

Your goal is obvious. You own some vacant land in counties where you do
not live, and you resent the fact that you have to pay for schools, fire
protection and other services there. Tough darts. If you don't like it,
sell your land. Or move onto it.

I'm suprised at you, using the love it or leave it argument.

Harry, my wife and I have a combined income of less than $60K. Out of that
we pay $ 9,000 in local taxes, apx $4,000 in federal taxes (if you include
SS) $6,000 in insurance and $3,000 in health insurance. While Federal taxes
have been going down, local taxes have increased 400% in the last 10 years.
My income has gone up 30% in that same period. The Cost of Living in my
area has increased over the years just slightly higher than my income except
for local taxes, health care and insurance. Of course I'd like to get a
handle on these expenses.

Your argument for imposing a literacy test is specious. Literacy tests
were abolished because those who imposed them misused them to keep
minorities from voting. There's no reason to go back to those days.
Besides, while I think it important to be able to read, in this day of
electronic communications, there are alternatve ways to hear about the
issues and decide what matters.

The test I am proposing just requires the voter to keep the name, possibly
just the letters (DEM) in memory long enough to vote. A pigeon can do that.

The reason we have public education is to insure we have an informed
electorate. Informed means also a sense of HISTORY and the ability to apply
the lessons learned from history to today. The above test requires only
the ability to keep three letters in memory and press a button next to those
letters.

With the above randomizing of the selections it should be harder to commit
voter fraud.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:06:45 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country.

I'm in the same boat (so to speak) as you. I have recreational
property in Wisconsin overlooking the Mississippi. Paying for
education, what the hell -- I really can't bitch about helping and
besides, the country/small town kids are actually polite...

Couple of points:
1) Federal tax -- All local taxes are a write-off.
2) Sales/use tax -- I have two boats in Wi that I have never paid
sales/use tax on because WI cannot tax non residents and Illinois (my
home state) cannot collect because the boats are not used here.
3) My only complaint -- Wisconsin could give part-time residents a
break on hunting and fishing licenses. Non-resident fees are very
high.

--
Q

"P.Fritz" wrote in message ...
snciker obviously harry (and asslicker) have no knowledge of history or
the Constitution.

Sure I do. Historically, Fritz will call someone a little boyish name
whenever he is dead wrong, and can't answer a simple question.

Jeff Rigby wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.



That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not in
a 401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three
times our net worth because we are lawyer bait.

If that is the fault of the gouvernment, go vote for a party that wants to
do something about that. (You can't because your duopoly system makes sure
that both parties are exactly the same and only intend to push the other
party to the extremes.)

AND we are being taxed to death without fair representation.
tax does not equal representation for a long time, and to my knowledge it
never has in the US.

I have property in three countys and can only vote in one countys local
election.
Do I understand you correctly that because you have more property than
average, you claim you should have more representation? What part of 'one
man one vote' don't you understand? (yup, women have votes too)

How do I insure the other two countys are being run efficently or honest.
You can't. you can buy property, but you cannot buy democratic rights.
You can buy all your property in one county. that would 'solve' your
dilemma.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

No, I would propose a law where the county can disown any property not owned
by its residents ;)

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Sure, and i suppose it is their own fault that they can't read properly.
Have you ever tought abouth howcome you have so many functional illiterates
in a country with forced schooling?
Your btw, is a thinly veiled attack on the rights of the poor and
disadvantaged. Considering your wealthy status, I can see why you'd want to
do that. But don't call your country a democracy anymore then, ok?

Before you step in it, think about your answer.

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It just
gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching and
razzia's start.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

Jeff Rigby wrote:

Harry, my wife and I have a combined income of less than $60K. Out of that
we pay $ 9,000 in local taxes, apx $4,000 in federal taxes (if you include
SS) $6,000 in insurance and $3,000 in health insurance.**While*Federal
taxes have been going down, local taxes have increased 400% in the last 10
years. My income has gone up 30% in that same period.**The*Cost*of*Living
in*my area has increased over the years just slightly higher than my
income except for local taxes, health care and insurance. Of course I'd
like to get a handle on these expenses.

so 10 years ago, you had an income of ~$40K and payed $1000 in local taxes =
$39K for other expenses, now you earn $60K and pay 4k in local taxes = $56K
for other expenses. that is an increase of $17K! Are you complaining that
this increase was not enough?
There are plenty of more civilised nations that tax much more then that.
(There are also al lot of other countries that have a more intelligent
president/foreign policy/electoral system, so that is not really an
argument...)

Your argument for imposing a literacy test is specious. Literacy tests
were abolished because those who imposed them misused them to keep
minorities from voting. There's no reason to go back to those days.
Besides, while I think it important to be able to read, in this day of
electronic communications, there are alternatve ways to hear about the
issues and decide what matters.

The test I am proposing just requires the voter to keep the name, possibly
just the letters (DEM) in memory long enough to vote. A pigeon can do
that.

So you think that most american voters that do not share your political self
interest are pigeons?

The reason we have public education is to insure we have an informed
electorate.*Informed*means*also*a*sense*of*HISTORY *and*the*ability*to
apply the lessons learned from history to today.*

That would disqualify your current president. But he promises you less taxes
so you can forgive him, don't you?

The*above*test*requires only the ability to keep three letters in memory
and press a button next to those letters.

With the above randomizing of the selections it should be harder to commit
voter fraud.

*cough*Diebold*cough*
Why bother with voters when you can easily manipulate the votes cast with
no trail showing you did so? Without international observers (that don't
have a vested interest or a political agenda) the coming elections cannot
claim to be 'fair.' Your president opposes those observers, IIRC.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

Harry Krause wrote:

A fine Democrat...... avoid the issue and refuse to address the point.
What point?

That John does not want the people to vote, I think.
What could there be wrong about any party involving more people in the
democratic process if you have a secret ballot?
Anybody is allowed to do that, but John rather implies it is fraud, because
it does not favour his desired outcome.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:09:53 +0200, Jelle
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It just
gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching and
razzia's start.

Troll troll troll rec.boats,
Roughly down the bit stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily,
You'll soon run out of steam....

Thank you, thank you - I'll be here all week - try the salad.

Later,

Tom
-----------
"Angling may be said to be so
like the mathematics that it
can never be fully learnt..."

Izaak Walton "The Compleat Angler", 1653

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:09:53 +0200, Jelle
wrote:

~~ snippage ~~

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It
just gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching
and razzia's start.

Troll troll troll rec.boats,
Roughly down the bit stream,
Merrily, merrily, merrily,
You'll soon run out of steam....

Thank you thank you.
the secon and forth strofe need some work, but a nice gest indeed.

I am having a great time and i don't even have to resort to adequacy style
trolling. These simple folks bite on everything!

Thank you, thank you - I'll be here all week - try the salad.

nah greenies is for women.

--
vriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle

"Q" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:06:45 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working
all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on
in
this country.

I'm in the same boat (so to speak) as you. I have recreational
property in Wisconsin overlooking the Mississippi. Paying for
education, what the hell -- I really can't bitch about helping and
besides, the country/small town kids are actually polite...

Couple of points:
1) Federal tax -- All local taxes are a write-off.

I thought the test was "If you don't get some service (value) for the money"
it's deductible. It becomes a sticky point to prove you didn't get any
services for the taxes spent.

Anyway, the write-off doesn't happen with vacant land until you sell it. In
the mean time, as an investment it's killing you to pay the $2,200 in taxes
on a 75X90 foot vacant lot every year.

My Grandfather had the opportunity (it became a Folk Tale in my family) to
purchase several acres of land on Longboat Key here in Sarasota for several
thousand dollars in the early 50's. At the time my Grandfather said, "Who
would want to buy a Flea infested strip of beach sand with no access
(road)". Today it's worth 20 million. When you think it thru, he would
have been forced to sell it in the 60's for $100k as he could not afford the
taxes for the additional 10 years to realize a million or the taxes for 40
years to realize 20 million. Taxes keep the poor poor and the rich richer.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:44:24 -0400, "Jeff Rigby"
wrote:

Anyway, the write-off doesn't happen with vacant land until you sell it. In
the mean time, as an investment it's killing you to pay the $2,200 in taxes
on a 75X90 foot vacant lot every year.

IIRC, on the deductions portion of the 1040, there is a line for
"Property Taxes Paid", or some such wording. Isn't this the *total*
of all property taxes? I'll keep an eye on this thread and post again
in a week or so -- hee hee, I need to do my 2003 return soon! At
least I put in an extension last filing season and made a prepayment,
so the real terrorists (IRS) won't slap me so hard this time;-)

--
Q

"P. Fritz" wrote in message ...

SNIP

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in favor of letting everyone vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.


So, does this mean it's a woman's choice and not that of the extreme right?

From: Harry Krause

Oh...and 9-11 took place on Bush's watch.


And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So, he blew
it too I guess.

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So, he blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.

From: Harry Krause

How many Americans died in WTC attack I?


Does it really matter how many died. 1 or 100. Under your guidelines all that
happens good or bad is the fault of the sitting President. You cannot have it
both ways. If the 9-11 attack was Bush's fault then the 93 attack was Clinton's
using your criteria. So then Pearl Harbor was Roosevelts and so on.

From: (Gould 0738)

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So, he
blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.








Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways. Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So,
he
blew it too I guess.

Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.

Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways.
Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened
under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.


Bush refuses to take responsibility for anything. Or even admit he's
made mistakes.


I believe that most of the decisions that a President makes are value based,
if you will, moral and character based decisions. If you have a President
with a good grasp of history and a strong moral base then his decisions
can't be wrong. The implementation can be flawed in many ways and that's
usually the responsibility of people that the President appoints. And I
believe he mentioned that there were several mistakes he made there but he
didn't want to embarrass them by mentioning their names.

I haven't mentioned intelligence failures as that SHOULD be obvious to even
a moron that flawed intelligence can cause wrong decisions. Again, that's
not the fault of the President unless he made the decision to cripple or
under fund intelligence.

Political corruption can rear it's head as many jobs (appointments) are
political payoffs for services during elections. My IMPRESSION is that this
is more of a problem with the Democrat party than with the Republican.
There are cases of Republican appointments were their ideology can get in
the way. A perfect example for the Democrats is Janet Reno (Waco) where
anti-gun efforts went to an extreme.

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:15:15 -0400, Jeff Rigby wrote:


I haven't mentioned intelligence failures as that SHOULD be obvious to
even
a moron that flawed intelligence can cause wrong decisions. Again, that's
not the fault of the President unless he made the decision to cripple or
under fund intelligence.

Our if they decided to use their own intelligence.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RGrew176 wrote:
From: (Gould 0738)

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So, he
blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.








Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways.
Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened
under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.


Bush refuses to take responsibility for anything. Or even admit he's
made mistakes.

Because he hasn't made any.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RGrew176 wrote:
From: (Gould 0738)

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So,
he
blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.








Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways.
Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened
under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.


Bush refuses to take responsibility for anything. Or even admit he's
made mistakes.

Because he hasn't made any.



Once again, are you kidding or just delusional?


Ok, I believe he made a mistake by underestimating just how partisan,
pig-headed and vicious the Democrats can be in an election year...even when
we're in the middle of a war.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RGrew176 wrote:
From: (Gould 0738)

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So,
he
blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.








Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways.
Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened
under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.


Bush refuses to take responsibility for anything. Or even admit he's
made mistakes.

Because he hasn't made any.



Once again, are you kidding or just delusional?


Ok, I believe he made a mistake by underestimating just how partisan,
pig-headed and vicious the Democrats can be in an election year...even
when we're in the middle of a war.


He also underestimated how much kerry would lie in an attempt to get
elected.

"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net...
"Harry Krause" piedtypecase@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RGrew176 wrote:
From: (Gould 0738)

And the first World Trade Center bombing took place on Clinton's. So,
he
blew
it too I guess.



Yup. Let's not reelect Clinton, either.








Again, you seem to miss the point. You want to have it both ways.
Anything that
happens with Bush in the chair is his fault but anything that happened
under
the previous administration is not their fault.

Go figure.


Bush refuses to take responsibility for anything. Or even admit he's
made mistakes.

Because he hasn't made any.



Once again, are you kidding or just delusional?


Ok, I believe he made a mistake by underestimating just how partisan,
pig-headed and vicious the Democrats can be in an election year...even when
we're in the middle of a war.


BWAHHAAAAA!!! You make a statment like that, and have th audacity to
call Democrats partisan!!!!!!!!!

"Jelle" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
favor of letting everyone
vote.....I
think that you need to have a vested interest.......i.e. only
property
owners should vote on whether to increase property taxes.

basskisser wrote:
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

Furthermore, I am not necessarily in

That's a good little Nazi! Make sure that people who are allowed to
vote fit YOUR agenda.....

There needs to be some compromise Harry. People who have been working
all
their lives investing in property as their retirement have been **** on
in
this country. We are exposed to lawyers because our investment is not
in
a 401K or home and we have to carry massive amounts of insurance. Three
times our net worth because we are lawyer bait.

If that is the fault of the gouvernment, go vote for a party that wants to
do something about that. (You can't because your duopoly system makes sure
that both parties are exactly the same and only intend to push the other
party to the extremes.)

I did vote for a party that is TRYING to do something about it. The Limits
on legal liability proposed by Bush if followed thru on the state level will
help. For instance, my wife just rear ended a pickup truck that in turn hit
an old Toyota car. The only damage to the car was a dinted trunk lid. That
woman is suing for $300,000, the limits of my liability. She had
preexisting neck injuries from another accident she had two years ago. So
the MRI shows, they say, additional injuries from this accident. NOT
POSSIBLE, I could have kicked the trunk lid enough to dent it. Did I
mention that the trunk lid was not latched...it was held down by a bungie
cord.


AND we are being taxed to death without fair representation.
tax does not equal representation for a long time, and to my knowledge it
never has in the US.

I have property in three countys and can only vote in one countys local
election.

Do I understand you correctly that because you have more property than
average, you claim you should have more representation? What part of 'one
man one vote' don't you understand? (yup, women have votes too)

How do I insure the other two countys are being run efficently or
honest.
You can't. you can buy property, but you cannot buy democratic rights.
So you would not be in favor of shareholder rights or the declaration of
rights.

I pay taxes for schools and have no children, I pay for county services
on
vacant land, I pay for emergency services and a fire department for
vacant
land.

So could we change the laws to allow me to vote for county offices in
countys where I own property?

No, I would propose a law where the county can disown any property not
owned
by its residents ;)

Wow, a wolf in sheeps clothing. With an attitude like that we would have NO
investment in property. EVERYONE would be renting from the state. Gee we
have that now, I pay and have no rights. Seems like renting to me.

Also, I'd like to see the ballet non-standardized so that at a minimum
people would have to be able to read the name to properly vote. That to
me
is a fair compromise with those who would require a minimum standard to
vote. Otherwise a vote is bought with money or lies. If the voter is
not
bright enough to tell when they are being lied to they most likely can't
read.

Sure, and i suppose it is their own fault that they can't read properly.
Have you ever tought abouth howcome you have so many functional
illiterates
in a country with forced schooling?

Yes I have. Ther is no one simple answer except they don't care. They will
be provided for by the state, no one starves anymore do they?

Your btw, is a thinly veiled attack on the rights of the poor and
disadvantaged. Considering your wealthy status, I can see why you'd want
to
do that. But don't call your country a democracy anymore then, ok?

Wealthy status, I live on what the government considers just above the
poverty level. I have invested in property for the last 30 years for my
retirement. I worked 60 hour weeks for 20 years, now at 53 I work only 50
hours a week.
Attack the poor, I am the poor. Think about my attitude. Everything I have
is exposed to lawyers, I worked for 30 years to have enough to retire on and
it could be taken away in an instant. Everywhere I turn someone wants a
part of it. I have no say in how much they can take or what they do with it
and you attack me. Think about what you are saying...you say I have no
rights, leave if you don't like it. Who is the dictator, the wolf, the
grasshopper who steals the ants larder saved for the winter.

Why do you think the wealthy would want to attack the rights of the poor.
There is obviously a bent in your thought processes that you need to
examine. You must assume that I have money because someone gave it to me.
No one can honestly accumulate money because it's too hard. It is hard. It
takes work and sacrifice. Some people can't imagine this.

I did. I think it is wasted on you, as it will not change your mind. It
just
gives me some munition to laugh about your country when the marching and
razzia's start.

--
onvriendelijke groeten/kind regards,

Jelle