Tom Tancredo
in [Golf]
|
From: bknight on 9 Feb 2010 22:50 On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:34:30 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >On 10 Feb 2010 03:25:58 GMT, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> >wrote: > >>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:46:19 -0600, bknight wrote: >>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:39:17 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> >>> wrote: >>>>On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:02:37 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: >>>> >>>>>You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or >>>>>Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others >>>>>here are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my >>>>>time. Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the >>>>>one about Palin possibly being elected president renders you >>>>>certifiable insane. >>>> >>>>Right now, the polls show that she's the leading contender for the >>>>Republican nomination. I'd gladly vote for her over Obama. >>> >>> That figures. You have no common sense. >> >>I actually want Palin to get the Republican nomination. However, 2012 is >>a long way away and there isn't much chance that she'd be able to fool >>the true believers long enough to make it happen. It's too bad, because >>she would have zero chance of winning the election. > >I'm liking Scott Brown more and more. He's a thousand times more >qualified than Palin. If Obama isn't able to get things going better >I think he's the GOP's best shot. I'd vote for him. > >BK Unless Palin is his running mate for VP. BK
From: dene on 10 Feb 2010 02:05 "William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-B8F40D.21141309022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <km44n5177qlfdklhs4tgpg0ocujrqgmrc5(a)4ax.com>, > bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:31:32 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper(a)aol.com> > > wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:54:29 -0600, bknight(a)conramp.net wrote: > > > > > > > >>You know this for sure, right? Just more ultra-right babbling. > > >> > > >>BK > > > > > >The Senate passed a health care bill which taxed all high end health > > >care programs to help pay for the expansion of Medicaid and the > > >subsidies for lower income people to buy insurance. > > > > > >In the secret meetings to reconcile the bill with the House version, > > >the unions were given an exemption from the tax. Do you think that > > >Obama came up with that idea himself? > > > > > > You know Jack, I might be willing to discuss this with Mike, or > > Ketchum, or another conservative, but you, and a couple of others here > > are so inane with the ultra-right messages that I won't waste my time. > > Of all the posts that you've delivered here for instance the one about > > Palin possibly being elected president renders you certifiable insane. > > > > BK > > Indeed, perhaps they could address the issue of Anthem Blue Cross Blue > Shield raising their premium rates 39% on those paying for their own > insurance? > > Of, course, everyone in the US can afford health insurance, can't they? So why did that state's insurance department allow such an increase? Is it conceivable that they are losing money, hand over fist? Today, I had interesting conversation with a two man business whom I signed up for group insurance. Both partners are in their late 20's. They moved their studio from Michigan to Oregon and thus had to change insurance plans. They put out an e-mail to all their friends and peers for advice. They were surprised to learn out that most people, their age, had no health insurance. It simply wasn't a priority. Now do you understand why rates have been rising through the roof? If the sick are the bulk of who is insured, then who offsets their claims? -Greg
From: dene on 10 Feb 2010 02:07 "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4b722885$0$30937$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > On Tue, 09 Feb 2010 21:59:47 -0500, BAR wrote: > > In article <4b71f275$0$4941$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > >> On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:09:32 -0800, dene wrote: > >>> <bknight(a)conramp.net> wrote in message > >>> news:a2p1n551rk6l1347r88pr3qlrmrk7cbpsn(a)4ax.com... > >>>> On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 03:46:50 GMT, assimilate(a)borg.org wrote: > >>>>> On 8-Feb-2010, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Jury is still out on Palin. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In what respect, Bill? > >>>>> > >>>>> she is still active and could serve in public office again. > >>>> > >>>> If the GOP has any possibility of winning in '12 it sure won't be > >>>> with her on the ticket. > >>> > >>> Agree....for now, but look how many dismissed Ronald Reagan as a B > >>> movie star. Somehow...he turned out ok. She could evolve into a > >>> serious contender but as it stands now, she has zippo chance of > >>> becoming our next President in 2012. > >> > >> That is very hard to imagine. Palin is a dull normal, unfit for high > >> office even as a Republican. I just can't see her fooling enough > >> voters to win a national election. > > > > Whom did you vote for in November of 2008 for POTUS? > > I win. No....you got fooled. -Greg
From: Moderate on 10 Feb 2010 06:24 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b676f2ea-2c5e-40da-b895-7ed9c6ae2443(a)g27g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... On Feb 9, 3:45 pm, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e34e35e6-da6b-43e1-84a2-4f08e184fe62(a)v36g2000vbs.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 8, 10:42 pm, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > > > On 8-Feb-2010, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You don't know that. Neither do the Tea Partiers and neither do I. If > > > Obama hadn't done the things he did to rescue the economy and end the > > > recesssion (which has ended) we could be in a severe depression now. > > > Nobody on the right seems to want to consider that. > > > As usual you show a less than stellar grasp on basic economics. Nothing > > that > > was done, with the exception of easing the liquidity problems of late > > 09-early10 has done anything to keep us out of a depression. And much of > > what was done was a wash at best. The single worst aspect of all this > > "action" is that it has made businesses gun shy. They don't want to > > invest > > or hire when the loonies in DC could change the rules again in > > midstream. > > > -- > > bill-o > > So you're certain beyond any doubt that government intervention in the > economy has had nothing to do with the growth in GDP in Q3 and Q4 of > 2009 or with the drop in unemployment in January 2010? > ***************************************************** > > I see you ignored my reply and now you want to move the goal posts. Tsk > Tsk I didn't see your reply and I wasn't talking to you, anyway. ******************************************** .... but you did move the goal posts. Gottcha.
From: Moderate on 10 Feb 2010 06:30
"William Clark" <wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote in message news:wclark2-EE6CED.16071509022010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <hksb74$6jb$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, > "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > >> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:7tdouaFpc3U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> > >> > Obama wanted an across the board tax on the "cadillac health plans". >> > The >> > Unions told him, oh no you don't. >> >> Don't forget that the Unions also do the President's bidding. Let's not >> forget the SEIU thug violence at early tea party rallies. Once they got >> the >> bad press the goons were called off. You don't see any more SEIU thugs >> at >> tea parties. > > And actually you never did in the first place. Other than in your own > mind and a questionable staged video. Revisionist history by Bill Clark. |