On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?



Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.



So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H

On Feb 9, 5:54�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?

Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.

So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." �What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial..
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:54�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause
Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.
Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...
Read you own post, Scottie.
I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"
Thanks for starting my day with a smile.
Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.
Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?
Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.
Absolutely true.
So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.
Luke 6: 41-42
One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.
"...steals for the poor." �What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.


Herring is getting more and more irrational as he ages.

On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:41:55 -0500, HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause
Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.
Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...
Read you own post, Scottie.
I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"
Thanks for starting my day with a smile.
Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.
Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?
Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.
Absolutely true.
So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.
Luke 6: 41-42
One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.
"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.


Herring is getting more and more irrational as he ages.

Well Harry, I see you've still not grown the balls to come out from behind
the pretend Bozo's Bin.
--
John H

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?

Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.

So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.

I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added)
the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian?

I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of
your opinion!
--
John H

On Feb 9, 6:51�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here

wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause

Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.

Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...

Read you own post, Scottie.

I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"

Thanks for starting my day with a smile.

Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.

Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?

Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.

Absolutely true.

So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.

Luke 6: 41-42

One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.

I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added)
the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian?

I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of
your opinion!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for
(or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't
really steal for (or in the name of) the poor.

We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a
play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four
years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram
over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5
delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and
1 Clinton delegate.

Somethin's happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?"
Everybody look what's goin down.......

I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-
dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time
for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention
of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults
solve problems.

On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:08:11 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

Some snippage


- Show quoted text -

I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.

"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!

DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.

You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.

Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Stop and think, John. (vs react)

Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.

I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added)
the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian?

I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of
your opinion!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for
(or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't
really steal for (or in the name of) the poor.

We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a
play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four
years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram
over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5
delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and
1 Clinton delegate.

Somethin's happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?"
Everybody look what's goin down.......

I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-
dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time
for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention
of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults
solve problems.

No, I didn't address your assertion that my party 'steals for the wealthy'.
It made little sense, and was therefore not addressed.

Now that we've decided the Democrats 'steal *from* the poor' (but pretend
otherwise), perhaps you'd explain your second assertion.

In my view, the Democrats *and* the Republicans steal for the wealthy.
You'd surely put Ted Kennedy, George Soros, Harry Ried, etc. amongst the
wealthy, yes?
--
John H

Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:51�pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 18:34:36 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould





wrote:
On Feb 9, 5:54?pm, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 15:53:02 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:34?am, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 06:24:38 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:
On Feb 9, 6:08?am, wrote:
On Feb 9, 9:03?am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "Reggie is Here
wrote:
HK wrote:
I am truly sorry if I offended any of you fellas.
Love you,
Harry Krause
Next thing you will be doing to calling some a Black Loser, or a
Wet-Back Loser.... you really should be ashamed of yourself.
Only if they think it will help in the elections.. The democrats have
been pulling this "tolerant party" farce for decades, the drift
between Obama and Billary has really opened up the curtains to the
blatant bigotry and pandering that is the rule of the day for the
dems...
Read you own post, Scottie.
I always get a kick out of statements like, "Those rotten, no-good, so
and so's and such and such's are despicable because they are so
hateful and intolerant!"
Thanks for starting my day with a smile.
Both of your parties are guilty of pandering. Yours hopes to achieve
and maintain power by toadying up to the equally rich or richer,
piling so much wealth on their ultraprivileged tables that some will
ultimately spill over the edges into your own pockets.
Bull****. Do you consider it 'bad' to be wealthy? Are the rich inherently
immoral? How do you define 'rich'?
Your opposition
?[liberals]
hopes to achieve and maintain power by promising the poor, the
discouraged and the disenfranchised an ever elusive "brighter day",
thereby garnering millions of hours of volunteer time and tens of
millions of votes.
Absolutely true.
So you are both a batch of thieves. The difference is not in what you
do, but who your masters are.
Luke 6: 41-42
One with your attitude towards religion should not quote the Bible.
--
John H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I didn't say it was bad to be wealthy, I said your party steals for
the wealthy----- vs the other party that steals for the poor. There's
no difference in what either of you do, only who your masters are.
"...steals for the poor." ?What horse****!
DC has a pot full of poor. It's been run by Democrats from time immemorial.
Wealthy Democrats. Democrats who've convinced the 'poor' that they will
look out for the 'poor'. Have the 'poor' done one iota better in all that
time? The Mayors go to jail, the city council folks go to jail, the school
board folks go to jail, the friggin' teachers' union folks go to jail.
You need to wake up Chuck. The Democrats have done a good job of convincing
the uneducated that the Democrats are looking out for them. It's true. The
Democrats want to keep them poor and uneducated - that way the poor will
continue to believe the **** like you just spouted above.
Hell no, the Democrats don't want the No Child Left Behind Act to succeed.
The poor may *learn* something!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Stop and think, John. (vs react)
Never did I say the Democrats *gave* anything to the poor, just that
Democrats steal from the general public in the name of the poor.
Your party steals from the general public in the name of the rich.
Once again, there is no difference in what either of your parties do-
only in the reasons you give for doing them.
I read. You said, "...the other party that steals *for* (emphasis added)
the poor." Perhaps that slip was Freudian?

I still find your opinion to be horse****. But, that's just my opinion of
your opinion!
--
John H- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting note: I don't see any denial that your party steals for
(or in the name of) the rich, only a protest that the Democrats don't
really steal for (or in the name of) the poor.

"Stealing for (or in the name of) the rich" you have got to be kidding
Chuck. Do you really believe that the Republican party has a plank in
their platform that says this?

Oppression of the masses is a trait of the Democrat party.

We ran into one of my wife's oldest (longest standing) friends at a
play tonight. This lady organizes the D caucus in her precinct. Four
years ago she had about 20 people attending. This year she had to cram
over 80 people into her house, yard, and garage. Her precint gets 5
delegates to the state D convention, and the crowd elected 4 Obama and
1 Clinton delegate.

Obama has captured hope and optimism, plain and simple. Clinton is
whiny, grating and abusive.

Somethin's happenin' here
What it is ain't exactly clear
But it's time to stop, "Hey! What's the sound?"
Everybody look what's goin down.......

I hope that the next POTUS (from either the tweedle-dee or the tweedle-
dum party) does a better job of reaching across the aisle. It's time
for people to stop reacting on an emotional level to the mere mention
of the name of the opposing political party. That's not how adults
solve problems.

Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to
increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose.
The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be
lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose.

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to
increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose.
The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be
lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose.



Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms?
Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why
should your kids & grandkids pay?

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"BAR" wrote in message
. ..

Our choice in this next election is how much our taxes are going to
increase and how much of our rights and freedoms we are going to loose.
The lose of rights and freedoms is not an immediate action they will be
lost over time and it will be a 50 year lose.



Hasn't George W already limited your precious freedoms?
Your taxes should be increased to pay for his adventures overseas....why
should your kids & grandkids pay?


Get a clue. Most of the overspending has not gone for overseas adventures.
About 25% of the last funding bill for overseas adventures was pork, sorry
earmarks, for both Dems and Repubs. It has been a spending frenzy by both
parties for the last 16 years. The only thing that make the Clinton years
look half way decent, is the revenue from the dot.bomb bust came in faster
than Congress could ramp up spending. Part of the debt in the last 7 years
is a carry over from Congress overspending in the previous 8 years. And
for a little enlightenment for the Canuck, the President / Executive Branch
can only spend money allocated by Congress.