From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <pNednWQ1Mdex21vWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)>, Bill Graham
> <weg9(a)> writes
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message news:hq4mmo$r
>>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)> wrote in message
>>> news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)
>>>> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>>> <d_ruether(a)> wrote:
>>>>>A case in point is the rise
>>>>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>>>>within reach of the presidency
>>>> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?
>>> 8^), 8^), 8^)!
>>> --DR
>>Do I think Sara Palin is smarter than Barak Obama? - No, of course not.
>>But she has a philosophy
> I doubt the could spell the word let along understand it.
>> that believes in individual responsibility, and Obama believes in
>>expansion of the welfare state.
> Obama is trying to make the US a civilised 1st world country .


Only if you regard Venezuela as "a civilised 1st world country."

The U.S. has been by far the most successful first-world country for the
last century or so. Whether it can survive Obama, however, remains to be

> Palin
> would make it a 3rd world country in months.

What color is the sky in your world? You certainly have a feeble grasp on

>>When I couple this with the generally weak powers of the presidency
>>anyway, my choice is simple. I'll take her in a New York minute.....
> It would be the end of the USA as a world power in weeks.

We currently have a Chicago machine thug and his gang in the White House. If
we can survive that I suppose we can survive anything, but anyway Sarah
Palin can stand on her own. She has principles and ideals. She's HONEST.
She's intelligent and sharp. She can make speeches on her own, as opposed to
reading what other people have written off a pair of teleprompters. Oh, did
I mention she's HONEST?

"How's that hopey-changey thing working out for ya?" Yeah!

From: Ray Fischer on
Neil Harrington <never(a)> wrote:
>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

>> But the government did that years ago, when they yielded to the religious
>> lobbyists and wrote the word, "marriage" into their laws. Now, you guys
>> (You religious types)
>You seem to have missed the part where I said I was non-religious.

That would be credible if your entire argument was not purely

>Absolutely, positively, incontrovertibly 100% non-religious. Is there any
>way I can make it any clearer?

You can start telling the truth.

Ray Fischer

From: Neil Harrington on

"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
> "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)> wrote in message
> news:hq6vsf$mtl$1(a)
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>> news:hq6s92$nqn$1(a)
>>> Hmmm, a "me first" right-wing attitude...;-)
>>> But, really, the Democrats have passed some financial form legislation
>>> in the House, but are now encountering the usual "'Bublican't" "Hell
>>> No!"
>>> reaction (as in, "reactionary"...) response in the Senate, with their
>>> usual
>>> "extreme stretching" of the truth about what is in the bill. It is not
>>> Obama
>>> who is impeding reform, but as usual, it is the Republicans who vote as
>>> a block against anything Obama wants, whether or not the Republicans
>>> originally submitted and cosponsored it(!). This is quite irresponsible
>>> "politics-first, the country's welfare be damned" behavior. The proposed
>>> reforms are needed now, and they move toward restoring the regulations
>>> that were weakened or removed, resulting in the near-disaster we just
>>> escaped (I hope...).
>>> --DR
>> Please, stop blaming the Republicans, that argument holds no water. The
>> Democrats have a mojority in both the Senate and the House, they are in
>> control and have the votes to pass anything they want.
> Oh - I guess you haven't been paying attention to what has
> been going on in the last year or so.

Skimming the remainder of your post it looks like YOU are the one who
"hasn't been paying attention (etc.)."

> It took only one Republican
> to potentially block final vote on the Health Care Reform bill

An abomination that finally passed anyway, through a combination of Obama's
Chicago-thug-style coercion, threatening and bribery, and Pelosi & Co.
rigging an elaborate and byzantine scheme about "deeming" a bill passed that
hadn't actually been voted on, and other forms of back-room skulduggery.

This, remember, was a bill that Obama PROMISED would be worked out in a
bipartisan fashion, everything right out in the open, and the whole
procedure, all deliberations and negotations broadcast on CNN. He PROMISED
this several times in fact, and it turned out to be just like all his other
promises, absolutely worthless. The whole bill was created by Democrats
behind closed doors, and the only thing broadcast on CNN was Obama's final
"summit," in which he himself did more talking than either all Democrats
combined or all Republicans combined, and it was all a waste of time anyway
since the all-Democrat bill was completely finished and settled by then. No
Republican amendments were even considered.

All this proving yet again that to Obama, promises are like toilet paper --
just something he uses and throws away.

From: Albert Ross on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:20:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)> wrote:

>8^) Yuh got me! ;-) In spirit, I am a libertarian, but in practice (given
>human nature), I am not since I understand its limitations. To simplify,
>no government = chaos; libertarianism = a return to the conditions
>present with robber barons and massively corrupt politicians (with few
>safeguards against polluted water, air, and soil, and unsafe cars, food,
>and working conditions, and for the rights and wellbeing of the less
>able) - in other words, I regard libertarianism as unrealistic in practice,
>as much so as was communism with its over-controlling of every
>aspect of citizen activity. I'm not so afraid of socialism as some are,
>since it has been proven to work well in some countries. So, there! ;-)

As someone once wrote, the opposite of law is not freedom, but rule by
the biggest baddest psychopath.

In the case of the US both have been true, until recently - the
psychopaths have been in charge of writing the laws . . .
From: stephe_k on
Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message

>> It is the job of the US Constitution to protect the rights of the minority
>> from the tyranny of the majority,
> And you really believe "the tyranny of the majority" is more onerous than
> the tyranny of a tiny minority (and their enablers)? How exactly do you
> think democracy is supposed to work?

Again, do you consider 48% a "tiny minority" because that's how many
people voted to approve this the last time it was voted on. You keep
spouting this "tiny fraction" when it is anything but.

If you don't think "the tyranny of the majority" is a problem, you might
think about revisiting the civil rights issues in the 50's and 60's. If
the "majority rules" about minority rights, they basically will never
have any.