From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:_e6dnUFoqJVEONrWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4b4750b7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>> "Walter Banks" <walter(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:4B474033.F4781782(a)
>>>> HEMI-Powered wrote:
>>>>> The term "tax and spend liberal" was coined for good reason.
>>>>> Conservatives have the outlandish feeling that people should be
>>>>> self-reliant and not depend on the goverment, so it follows that
>>>>> people should be able to spend their money better than bureaucrats.
>>>>> Liberals feel just the opposite. They think people are stupid and
>>>>> helpless and so the government must help them. So, they grow
>>>>> government and confiscate your money. Might be marginally OK except
>>>>> that it has NEVER worked because of waste, fraud, and corruption.
>>>> One of the stranger dichotomies is the Democratic governments
>>>> in the the US for the last 40 years or so is that they have been
>>>> more fiscally responsible that Republican governments. The biggest
>>>> republican failure has been that they have failed in many cases to
>>>> fund their spending.
>>>> The US was essentially bankrupt a year ago. GNP was seriously
>>>> down, they were involved in two unfunded wars, revenue was
>>>> lower than the costs of essential services at the local level.
>>>> Infrastructure was being funded lower than the depreciation.
>>>> Private interests were siphoning off about 6% of GNP in
>>>> healthcare "overheads".
>>>> I have rarely heard anyone talk about the real reason that
>>>> the Reagan tax cuts appeared to work. At the time inflation
>>>> was greater than 10%. Reducing tax rates at the same time
>>>> as increasing everyone's income into the next tax bracket was
>>>> a political shell game. At the same time long term debt was
>>>> effectively reduced by the inflation rate. Blue smoke and
>>>> mirrors was the phase at the time
>>> The Bush administration was never a true conservative regime. It used
>>> the
>>> conservatives and religious right as an excuse to line their pockets and
>>> those of their buddies. Extreme left does not work and leads to a
>>> tyranny
>>> of the left, as proved in the now defunct Soviet Union. A tyranny of the
>>> right needs no further example. It was only after China started to move
>>> to the right that it moved into the position it is now in. The major
>>> problem with labeling and pigeonholing is that it allows for no middle
>>> ground. There are times when the government has an obligation to step in
>>> and times when it should just let businesses sort things out. The lack
>>> of
>>> restrictions on giving the bailout funds is an example of what happens
>>> when the government steps in and gives business carte blanche. If I were
>>> the CEO of any of those banks, I probably would have done the same
>>> thing.
>>> If anyone here says any thing to the contrary, I truly question their
>>> veracity. I see no clear line when government should and should not act.
>>> Indeed, to be truly effective the line must be flexible. The cry that
>>> government is taking over our lives when it steps in on the health care
>>> bill, is patently false. the Sara Palins of this world have no
>>> conscience
>>> when they promote such lies as the bill includes "death panels." I
>>> wonder
>>> why she promotes those lies. In her case it may just be stupidity.
>>> </end mini rant>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>> weg9 says: Actually any plan, public or private will have to include,
>> "death panels". There is no way any insurance company, or any health plan
>> can do whatever is necessary to keep anyone alive indefinitely. We are
>> all
>> mortal, and there will have to be some end point to preserving the health
>> of everyone sooner or later. No matter what insurance plan they come up
>> with, there will have to be some point where your health can no longer be
>> supported, because of age, or some condition for which there is no
>> practical cure, and someone will have to be allowed to decide when this
>> point is reached, and the "plug" has to be pulled. That's the way it is
>> now, and that's the way it will have to be in the future.
> I hope you enjoyed your last word. You obviously have not read both the
> Senate and House bills. You also obviously have not looked at the
> statistics
> as to the number of lives that can be saved, or made significantly better
> if
> the bill, even in its watered down form is passed.
> --
> Peter

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with my comment on, "death

It's true.......You liberals have a big problem with reading comprehension.

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> news:s9qdnbxTiOFLPtrWnZ2dnUVZ_uKdnZ2d(a)
>> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
>> news:4b474c6f$0$31303$8f2e0ebb(a)
>>>>> We also have a bar and serve food including meat. Non-alcohol
>>>>> drinkers
>>>>> to not have to drink alcohol, vegetarians do not have to eat the meat
>>>>> but if people smoke no one gets the choice about inhaling smoke.
>> If they don't smoke, then they have no business being in my bar in the
>> first place. They should have read the sign on the front door that tells
>> them to beware of entering, because of the second hand smoke, and gone
>> down the block to one of the many places where there is no smoking. How
>> many times do I have to tell you this? I have described the situation at
>> least a half a dozen times now.....Can't you people read? - That must be
>> the problem. You liberals can't read, so you can't read the sign on the
>> front door that warns you about the second hand smoke, and you come
>> inside the door anyway, and start to choke from the second hand
>> smoke.......Perhaps it is a good law after all. It is on the books
>> because liberals can't read, and therefore have no way to protect
>> themselves......I should have realized that to begin with. The liberal
>> government of Palo Alto California is just trying to protect itself from
>> an obvious hazard. Sorry, guys......I stand corrected.
> I am going to purchase the property on either side of your bar. On one
> side I will manufacture fireworks on half the property and distill
> gasoline on the other half. On the other side of your bar I will open a
> chemical producing plant. Then I will fully insure both my properties,
> hope for the best and retire on the insurance proceeds. If folks are
> killed in your bar, - screw them. They could have gone to a different bar.
> --
> Peter
You would be breaking the zoning laws.....I have absolutely nothing against
zoning laws. I don't think any libertarian doesn't believe in zoning laws.

From: Bill Graham on

"Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> I simply carried his own argument to its dryly logical extreme.
> --
> Peter

In your dreams, idiot.......

From: tony cooper on
On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 13:50:36 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>

>"HEMI-Powered" <none(a)> wrote in message
>> Peter added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>> YOu forgot: "stupid."
>>> The term applies to all who had different ideas and
>>> philosophies.
>> Yeah, like when Galileo and Capernicus tried to change the Earth-
>> ctric view of the universe. But, you are right, there are those who
>> think people who disagree with them are stupid. I often find this
>> with Far Left Loons and Green Nazis who somehow have their facts all
>> wonky OR they have no facts at all.
>weg9 says: I have to admit that I am one of these. I try to understand
>the mind of the liberal, because there are so many of them, and some of them
>have higher degrees from well known universities, but it does me little
>good.....I put forth something that seems very logical and perfectly obvious
>to me, and the liberals just can't seem to understand my point at all.

But you can't understand that most of the people who fail to see your
point, or agree with your point, are not liberals at all.

The word "liberals", to you, is a catch-all phrase that includes
anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Ray Fischer on
Michael J <lakediver(a)> wrote:
>On Jan 8, 9:01´┐Żam, rfisc...(a) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>"and the Bible says that you should be put to
>> death for working on Sunday."
>Actually the Bible say no such thing


>nor does the Bible state that
>Sunday is the Sabbath.

Stupid dumbshit.

>But that said, according to ray,

Another lie.

Ray Fischer