From: Carbon on
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:20:52 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 17-Dec-2009, kenpitts <ken.ptts(a)> wrote:
>> This crew of liberal Dems are leaving an unbelievable trail of
>> consequences. They are giving drunken sailors a bad name with all the
>> hundreds of illions they are spending like there is no tomorrow.
> Actually they are making the Republicans before them, who had already
> soiled the name of drunken sailors everywhere, look like misers.
> "The Democratic Party is not so much a political party anymore as much
> as it is a public relations firm whose primary target audience is that
> of a remedial civics class."
> - Tom Elia

Are you sure this quote is correct? Because it seems like it could be
applied at least as well to the Republicans.
From: Carbon on
On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:17:57 -0600, Chris Bellomy wrote:
> assimilate(a) wrote, On 12/17/09 10:09 PM:
>> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:
>>> There has been considerable reporting about the stovepiping of intel
>>> through Cheney's office. I want to be precise about this, though:
>>> *Cheney's* office.
>>> But the links between Cheney and the doctored intel are documented
>>> and proved.
>> where?
> did quite a bit of the investigative reporting,
> which probably explains why you never read it. Nevertheless, if you
> want to get down to the details, those are the archives to read. The
> reporting was quite thorough and specific.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible
shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's
record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after
military action.
From: Carbon on
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:11:11 +0000, assimilate wrote:
> On 17-Dec-2009, Carbon <nobrac(a)> wrote:
>>> you read too much Cy Hirsch
>> What was he wrong about, specifically?
> just about everything

From: Alan Baker on
In article <z_-dnfNr6rQGt7bWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)>,
Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:59 PM:
> > Nope. The same reasoning works for them. They got the money they have
> > because they made it happen.
> And they made it happen by being big players at Goldman Sachs
> and dumping all their risk on the taxpayer while they collect
> the reward.

A tiny fraction did that, Chris. Be honest.

> Or, they made it happen by using the power bequeathed to them
> by their parents, and the connections power provides, to put
> themselves in position to win lucrative defense contracts from
> the government, again at the expense of the taxpayer.

Nope. That won't *earn* them money.

> These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking
> wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much
> less making in one year. In case you haven't been paying
> attention, they run the country, and have been running it
> for awhile now.

You're talking about the politics of envy.

Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: BAR on
In article <z_-dne1r6rSBtrbWnZ2dnUVZ_rpi4p2d(a)>,
ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says...
> David Laville wrote, On 12/18/09 12:32 AM:
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 23:52:30 -0600, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but it's factual. Poorer people pay a far greater
> >> percentage of their income in those taxes and fees than
> >> do the wealthy. Period.
> >
> > Do you even know what a progressive tax is?
> Careful. I have a history of embarrassing people on this
> topic. This is not the liberal you want to try that tactic
> with.

How much money do you earn Chris? If it is more that that which provides
you a basic subsistence then you are one of those you hate or envy.

Do you have a savings account? If yes, why are you hoarding money?

Do you have a retirement account? If yes, why are you hoarding money?