From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-16 15:47:57 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:h8qsgm$lr5$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:BdadncP-vJxLly3XnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> [.......]
>>> Good points, and I agree with most of them. But my problem is the
>>> government insists on taking my tax money and giving it away to "the
>>> poor", or anyone else who makes less than I do, and I don't know how to
>>> stop this. It isn't their money. It's mine. But they have the power to
>>> steal it from me under this socialized system, and I don't know how to
>>> stop that. During election time, they advertise that if you vote for
>>> them, they will steal money from the rich and give it to the poor, and,
>>> since there are more who think of themselves as poor than rich, these
>>> people vote for them, and then they deliver what they promised.
>> [...]
>>
>> I think you don't understand the predominant beliefs of the US electorate
>> very well... I think few see the election of Democrats as specifically to
>> "steal rich people's money so more can be given to (poor) me", as the
>> unbelievably odd (to some of us) "bill of goods" the Republicans have sold
>> to so many for so long that "supporting the interests of the rich is
>> best for us
>> (the poor) because, well, someday we may also be rich - which is a fantasy,
>> but one that is widely held by Americans, especially now with widespread
>> popular lotteries in existence. BTW, this nonsense predates the "anything
>> socialistic is bad" myth sold also by those on the Right, who fail to mention
>> that much of what is taken for granted as basic services *is* socialistic...
>> Armed with these two myths, a disreputable bunch of rascals is often able
>> to draw roughly 50% of the electorate's votes. Pushing these myths, with
>> repeated lies and deceptions added, works for winning elections, alas...
>> --DR
>>
> Except I was able to work and support a family of 5 and still
> accumulate a million dollars during my 40 years. Then, the democrat
> give away artists crashed the market and stole half of it away from me,
Now, now Bill rewriting history won't make it so. Just how did the
Democrats "crash the market"?
If I am not mistaken the potitical helm of this nation was controlled
by the Bush Administration when things fell apart. Look to Wall St. for
your loss.

> and now they are busy trashing the value of my dollar in order to get
> the other half. So it wasn't a myth.

The dollar lost its shine due to the funding of a war we could not
afford, and the economic hole the Bush administration slid us into.

> Everyone in this country can become rich.

Define "rich".
They can dream of the obscene wealth of those who are the real
beneficiaries of Republican policy, however the best most will do, is
to be comfortable. Most will just get by.

> They just have to protect their money from the thieving democrats
and Republicans.
> after they get it. (I recommend buying gold)
I guess you have been listening to Beck again.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:

> I don't remember whether they had illegal aliens living off the dole in
> "1984".

Thank goodness we don't have that in the U.S. either!

You really need to spend some time researching the facts. Start here:
"http://www.urban.org/publications/305184.html"
From: SMS on
Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab132d8$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> I think of it as the lesser of two evils. Right now, the government
>>> is giving my money away to the illegal aliens in bushel baskets,
>>
>> Actually they're not, at least not the federal government directly.
>> It's the states that are required to provide education, and that are
>> not allowed to turn away anyone from emergency rooms regardless of
>> their ability to pay or whether or not they are here legally.
>
> When I use the term, "government" I mean either stste or federal. (or
> even local county) They are all the same to me, since they all take tax
> money from me.

The difference is that the state and local governments have no power to
enforce immigration laws. The federal government mandates on education
and emergency health care are unfunded mandates that the state is forced
to accept. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare unless a
state or locality decides to provide it, so of course you never actually
saw piles of welfare checks that were being distributed to illegal
immigrants in Oregon, unless you're referring to welfare that is being
distributed to U.S. citizens that were born here to illegal immigrants.
If that's the case I suggest that you work on changing the law to
eliminate the provision that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a
citizen--you'd have a lot of support for that.
From: mikey4 on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc95d55a-14d7-48da-b3e5-cd1360f77d74(a)v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 7:05 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
>
> > > And all liberals dance to their tune as well.
>
> > Excuse me?
>
> > You seem to having a bad acid trip there, so just lie back and relax
> > for a while, listen to the music, and have a few beers.
>
> > Everything will look better in the morning.
>
> Why should you be excused? You've had good acid trips?
> Are you claiming that liberals don't dance?

Okay, maybe you *aren't* on drugs. As an alternative, you could be
suffering from some *other* abberation that causes you to post
nonsense.

Choose one.

So you won't claim liberals don't dance?
Your posting facts? Liberals have their own tune and eveyone with half a
brain, you included, knows it.
You and Ray, the schmucks.


From: mikey4 on

"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:830abf5d-647a-4368-b71f-2c4e16ee5559(a)d15g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 15, 10:41 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >When you consider how many handguns are in the hands of American
> >citizens,
> >our firearm death rate is extremely small.....
>
> A tacit admission that fewer guns would mean fewer deaths.

Nope. Only fewer deaths by gun, if that. And with a corresponding rise
in other causes.

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.