From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
> "Peter" <peternew(a)> wrote in message
> news:4bca031a$0$27749$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared->
> Fox is not really in favor of religious nuttery, in your snes of the word.
>> Fox is simply using the concept as a money making machine. I tend to
>> think of Roger Ailes as a modern day Goebels. How many Republican front
>> running presidential canditates are not on the Fox payroll.
> How would you know? - You never watch it.

Wrong assumption.
Now answer my question.
Slightly changed so even you can understand it.
Name each front running Republican on the Fox payroll.
Name each Republican front running presidential candidates who is not on
the Fox payroll.
Do you forget that thiese issues are a matter of public knowledge.
BTW do you have any idea of Murdoch's potential loss if the government was
to reinstate the old media control laws?
It makes your ndocumented welfare cheats look like pikers.
Can you say Goldman Sachs. How much of your pension did they steal.

From: Stuffed Crust on
In Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
> employees that have told me that the present government has done nothing to
> keep the banks from doing exactly what they did in 2008 to the economy. And

They're working on it, or at least they're trying to. Oddly enough
there's a large voting bloc (the so-called party of NO) in the Senate
that is holding this up by threatening to filibuster everything,
including the very ideas they proposed to begin with..

> to Glen Beck? Do you think he is lying? He has pointed these things out to
> me, and there is nobody refuting what he says. Oh sure, they disparage him

I can't speak about anything Beck says specifically (since you aren't
mentioning anything specific here) but... If someone starts shouting
that their smurf repellant is working, because hey, you don't see any
smurfs around, do you try to refute them or just ignore them for the
loon they are and get on with more meaningful pursuits?

- Solomon
Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org
Melbourne, FL ^^ (mail/jabber/gtalk) ^^
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>> "Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message

>>> The problem with most US Libertarians (and extreme Republicans) is that
>>> their world only works if there is a society to give them the room to do
>>> it. IF all of us believed as they do I would be living in his house
>>> having shot him to get it...
>> This is a good summation of the inherent flaw of libertarianism in
>> its pure form (never "one for all and all for one", but always "all
>> for one that one can get"). In other words, the almost inevitable
>> result of pure libertarianism would be a societal return to primitive
>> rapaciousness and the loss of freedom and possessions by most
>> to the strongest. Good grief! 8^(
>Wonderful how you visualize a society that has never existed, and know so
>much about it. You are describing pure anarchy, and not libertarianism.

The only difference between the two is that you like one word and
don't like the other.

> The
>libertarians I know believe in the rule of law, and are not anarchists.

You only believe in laws that you agree with - laws that restrict
other people but not yourselves.

> We
>just believe in maximizing our potential freedoms,

Q.E.D. Restrict other people so that you can do as you please.

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>"David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)> wrote in message
>> Yes, of course! ;-) Funny that you "get" this so easily, but it appears
>> that
>> you cannot conceive of others holding different political/social/economic
>> views and also being possibly right...;-)
>Oh, I understand that others hold different political views, but I know that
>they are wrong.

Bill is infallible. Just like every other dictator in history he
_knows_ what's best for everybody.

> They reward laziness and ineptitude, instead of industry and
>ability. They ridicule people who save and prepare for their own futures and

Wow. Goebbels would be proud.

Ray Fischer

From: Ray Fischer on
Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>There is no way in hell I can combat 100 million stupid liberal democrats,
>and you know it......My only escape now is death. My father was wrong.....I
>should have left this country over 50 years ago, when I still had the chance
>to get away from you bastards.

That coming from someone who just admitted to committing felony
immigration fraud.

It always seems that those with the least morals pretend to be betetr
than everybody else.

Ray Fischer