From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> Neil Harrington <secret(a)> wrote:
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:PLednSJvrajT6yzXnZ2dnUVZ_gGdnZ2d(a)
>>>> Much the same with the latest ACORN scandal, which stunk so badly that
>>>> even Democrats in Congress finally voted to stop funding ACORN. But you
>>>> never even heard about it from ABC, CBS or NBC, did you?
>>> [Nonsense deleted...]
>>> What was shown on tape from a *few* ACORN locations (but where
>>> were the reportings of the ones that threw out these imposters?)
>>What makes you think ANY of the ACORN offices did or would do any
>>differently from the ones on tape? ACORN is rotten and corrupt to the
> If that's true then it must also be true of the Republican party given
> the number of Republicans who have been shown to be lying,
> philandering hypocrites.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)

Just like the lefttards

From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>><stephe_k(a)> wrote in message
>>> mikey4 wrote:
>>>> People are pissed because "they" have finely woke up to the fact that
>>>> the
>>>> "government" is out of control and has been for a very long time.
>>> Well I was pissed watching GWB spending BILLIONS on a war while giving
>>> MASSIVE tax breaks to the wealthy. I was pissed watching him do NOTHING
>>> other than watching the economy fail. Were you? Some of us didn't just
>>> "wake up" because a republican wasn't in the white house. If Obama had
>>> been handed a healthy country and done this, I'd be pissed right there
>>> with ya, but that isn't what happened.
>>> Stephanie
>>My point here Stephanie is that this entire mess is a result of *both*
>>parties screwing the pooch for *years and years and years*.
> It is a fundamental policy of republicans to cut taxes for the rich
> and reduce or eliminate government regulation while allowing
> corporations free reign. Those policies cause this current economic
> climate.
> Lack of regulation allowed the finanicial collapse. Cutting taxes for
> the rich left the middle class further in debt. Free reign for
> corporations allowed them to cut worker salaries in order to give
> countless millions to execs.
> And when the middle class doesn't have money to spend, and when the
> financial industry collapses, and when the rich ship their money out
> of the country, then you get an economy that's in the toilet.
> --
Here we go with rays typical response. There was no lack of regulation ray,
you really need to read up on the SEC and how it came about.

From: mikey4 on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
> mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>> mikey4 <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>Yep. In Australia, the government pumped a ton of cash into stimulus
>>>>>>payments for just about everybody, & told us to go spend it. We did, &
>>>>>>it kept us out of a recession by the skin of our teeth. In fact, we're
>>>>>>the only G20 nation that has avoided recession. The only thing Obama
>>>>>>done wrong is not give /enough/ money to people who'd go straight out
>>>>>>spend it.
>>>>> What the rightards and politicians don't seem to grasp is that giving
>>>>> tons of money to rich people doesn't do squat for the economy, and
>>>>> most likely makes things even worse because they often ship their
>>>>> money out of the country. Give stimulus money to the poor and middle
>>>>> classes and the money will get spent and will get spent in the
>>>>> country.
>>>>So what do the lefttards do? They throw it at big business, banks, etc
>>> Never trust a man who's certain that he has simple solutions to
>>> complex problems.
>>> Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance.
>>> mikey in <h8rvun$1hb$1(a)>
>>ROFL........ Ray, there is nothing funnier than a schmuk on mommy's pc
> You're really not that funny.
Posting more lies I see

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 23:25:48 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>

>"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)> wrote in message
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> "wrbrown13" <wrbrown3(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:xz99h2s243hc$.9skloajqavx8.dlg(a)
>>>> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 15:36:20 -0700, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>> "Bob G" <mrbobjames(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:adbcdb79-6c7f-4021-8fc0-3adf608d7083(a)
>>>>>> Republicans would rather get jerked around by the corporations than by
>>>>>> the government. Wait until you get a horrible diseaase and your health
>>>>>> insurance company drops you like a hot potato.
>>>>>> The fact is that this nation is now an oligarchy (and has been for
>>>>>> some time) and not a democracy.
>>>>>> How does that go, from the corporations, by the corporations, and for
>>>>>> the corporations?
>>>>> That is what litigation is supposed to correct.....You still have the
>>>>> right
>>>>> to sue. But I never said that government couldn't regulate. Your health
>>>>> insurance policy should list the stuff it doesn't cover, in large ten
>>>>> point
>>>>> type.......I would vote for a law like that.
>>>> Now there's a thought. Sue a large corporation who has any number of
>>>> lawyers on their staff and can drag litigation out intil you don't have
>>>> a
>>>> penny to your name. Great in theory, but a joke in reality.
>>> They usually settle out of court. Why? Because juries are very
>>> sympathetic to the little guy, and have been known to award many millions
>>> of the big companies money to him.
>> After years of litigation, during which the plaintiff may have died of
>> their illness.
>Better yet....Then his poor widow collects even more money....

More "I have no idea what I'm talking about" stuff from Bill.
Personal injury litigation stops if the plaintiff dies. Anything not
settled before the death is ended. Only if the surviving spouse is
also a plaintiff does the case continue.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on

"Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-09-18 00:46:40 -0700, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)> said:
>> > C J Campbell wrote:
>> >> And no -- bureaucratizing health care is unlikely to get rid of waste
>> >> and corruption. Far to the contrary. A national health care plan would
>> >> vastly increase waste and corruption.
>> >
>> > Really? In every other country with 'socialised' health care, they
>> > spend much less than the USA does.
>> They also ration their health care. If we included all the patients
>> from countries with socialized health care who come to the US for care
>> as part of the cost of their care, and subtracted it from what we
>> spend, I think the numbers would be dramatically reversed.
> The rationing argument doesn't standup to the facts.
> All the Canadian patients who come to the US for necessary
> health care have the costs paid for by the Canadian health
> care system. That includes elective procedures.

No, I don't think so.

> The spending in Canada is about half per person of the
> US health costs.

Because it's rationed. Rationing can do wonders for bringing down costs, and
in fact may be absolutely necessary to make a thing affordable -- especially
when it's "free," which naturally drives up demand. It still has to be paid
for by somebody.

Even so, the Canadian health-care system has been described as "imploding"
by professionals there.