Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

April 11, 2009

What is it that you want Bush to acknowledge?

Val

Posted by: " Roni Molin "

Barney has acknowledged his mistake in that. What else do you want.

Bush on the other hand acknowledged nothing.

April 11, 2009

The recently passed budget bill contains over eight thousand five

hundred earmark and pork provisions. Apparently not a single republican

supported it, and in the House 20 democrats couldn't stomach it either.

If they can pass such a disaster with no republican support [not a

single vote] even after 20 democrats vote against it then they must have

a pretty strong majority. If you interpret the CNN report below

differently please tell me how.

I guess can tell us if Fox News reports the same, or something

different! [ggg]

..

> *WASHINGTON (CNN)* -- The Senate passed a $3.53 trillion version of

> the federal budget for fiscal year 2010 late Thursday night in a

> party-line vote, ending several weeks of acrimonious partisan debate.

>

> The U.S. House passed a $3.55 trillion budget for fiscal year 2010

> Thursday night.

>

> The package was approved on a 55-43 vote. GOP Sens. Arlen Specter of

> Pennsylvania, and Olympia Snowe and of Maine -- who

> voted in favor of the president's stimulus bill last month -- voted

> against what is essentially the blueprint of Obama's economic policies

> going forward.

>

> Earlier in the evening, the House of Representatives passed its own

> version of the spending plan --$3.55 trillion budget, capping off a

> long day of debate and voting marked by the defeat of several

> alternative spending plans.

>

> The House version of the budget, which passed by a margin of 233-196,

> also passed in a virtual party-line vote. All but 20 House Democrats

> supported it; no House Republican voted in favor.

>

> Neither budget package garnered a single GOP vote.

>

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 8:06 pm (PDT)

>

> They do not have a fillibuster proof majority. They can't count on the

> ones that go along with them most of the time. That is not fail safe.

>

> Roni

April 11, 2009

How many vetoes did Bush get successfully completed? Please don't make

up facts to fit your beliefs. Name ONE that specifically benefited only

the " rich " . Define " rich " .

BTW, it's " Bush " .

I believe this is a complete list; if not please correct. Note that

only 7 or 8 were successful. Which of the successful vetoes meet your

description?

..

> W. *Bush* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/_W._Bush>

>

> 1. July 19 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_19>, 2006

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006>: Vetoed H.R. 810

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.109hr810>, Stem Cell

> Research Enhancement Act of 2005

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cell_Research_Enhancement_Act_of_2005>,

> a bill to ease restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell

> research <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy>.

> Override attempt failed in House, 235-193 (286 needed).

>

> 2. May 1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed H.R. 1591

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr1591>, U.S. Troop

> Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability

> Appropriations Act, 2007

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Troop_Readiness,_Veterans%27_Care,_Katrina_Re\

covery,_and_Iraq_Accountability_Appropriations_Act,_2007>.

> Override attempt failed in House, 222-203 (284 needed). A later

> version of the bill that excluded certain aspects of the initial

> legislation that the President disapproved of... H.R. 2206

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr2206>, was enacted

> as Pub.L. 110-28

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ028.110>

> with the President's approval.

>

> 3. June 20 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_20>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed S. 5

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110s5>, Stem Cell

> Research Enhancement Act of 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_Cell_Research_Enhancement_Act_of_2007>.

>

> 4. October 3 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_3>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed H.R. 976

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr976>, Children's

> Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program>

> ( " SCHIP " ). Override attempt failed in House, 273-156 (286 votes needed).

>

> 5. November 2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed H.R. 1495

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr1495>, Water

> Resources Development Act of 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resources_Development_Act_of_2007>.

> Overridden by House, 361-54 (277 votes needed). Overridden by Senate,

> 79-14 (62 needed), and *enacted as Pub.L. 110-114

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ114.110>

> over President's veto.*

>

> 6. November 13 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_13>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed H.R. 3043

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr3043>, Departments

> of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related

> Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Departments_of_Labor,_Health_and_Human_Services,_a\

nd_Education,_and_Related_Agencies_Appropriations_Act_of_2008>.

> Override attempt failed in House, 277-141 (279 votes needed).

>

> 7. December 12 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_12>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: Vetoed H.R. 3963

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr3963>, Children's

> Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Children%27s_Health_Insurance_Program>.^[20]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-19>

> Override attempt failed in House, 260-152 (275 votes needed).

>

> 8. December 28 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_28>, 2007

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007>: /Pocket/ Vetoed H.R. 1585

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr1585>, National

> Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year\

_2008>^[21]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-20>

> . A later version of the bill that changed a minor provision of which

> the President disapproved was quickly passed by Congress (H.R. 4986

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr4986>) and was

> enacted with the President's approval as Pub.L. 110-181

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ181.110>

> on 28 January <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_28> 2008

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>.

>

> 9. March 8 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_8>, 2008

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>: Vetoed H.R. 2082

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr2082>,

> Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_200\

8>.^[22]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-21>

> ^[23]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-22>

> Override attempt failed in House, 225-188.

>

> 10. May 21 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_21>, 2008

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>: Vetoed H.R. 2419

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr2419>, 2007 U.S.

> Farm Bill <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_U.S._Farm_Bill>.^[24]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-23>

> ^[25]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-24>

> Overridden by House, 316-108 (283 votes needed). Overridden by Senate,

> 82-13 (64 votes needed). *Enacted as Pub.L. 110-234

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ234.110>

> over the President's veto*. Due to a clerical error, this act was

> repealed by Pub.L. 110-246

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ246.110>.

>

> 11. 18 June <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_18> 2008

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>: Vetoed H.R. 6124

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr6124>, 2007 U.S.

> Farm Bill <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_U.S._Farm_Bill>,

> re-passed by Congress to correct a clerical error in HR 2419.^[26]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-25>

> Overridden by House, 317-109 (284 votes required). Overridden by

> Senate, 80-14 (63 votes needed). *Enacted as Pub.L. 110-246

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ246.110>

> over the President's veto*.

>

> 12. July 15 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_15>, 2008

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>: Vetoed H.R. 6331

> <http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110hr6331>, Medicare

> Improvements for Patients and Providers Act

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medicare_Improvements_for_Patients_an\

d_Providers_Act & action=edit & redlink=1>.^[27]

>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes#cite_not\

e-26>

> Overridden by House, 383-41 (283 votes required.) Overridden by

> Senate, 70-26 (64 votes required). *Enacted as Pub.L. 110-275

>

<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_public_laws & \

docid=f:publ275.110>

> over the President's veto*.

>

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama>

>

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:37 pm (PDT)

>

> I guess you haven't heard of presidential veto powers....

> bushier made it impossible to do anything good for the country unless it

> benefited the rich.

April 11, 2009

Unfortunately it's pretty much a kindergarten view of the

responsibilities of the president and the federal government. You

cannot provide a single federal document from the constitution until

today that suggests the president should do as indicated. As she said:

It's an opinion; and an opinion not backed by a single fact.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:38 pm (PDT)

>

> I agree with that.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> But the point I was trying to make was that this stupid system, which Bush

> ran for 8 years, could have been giving people the little bit of help they

> needed to get them over a rough spot, instead of forcing them to become

> destitute and then keeping them in the system by their ridiculous

> rules and

> regulations. I do believe the system needs reform, as to when and how much

> help someone gets. The give to little too late, and that's how people stay

> in the system. Yes there are people who abuse the system, but if they had

> been helped before they got " stuck " in it, and before they spent a

> long time

> without working, I think the government would have spent less, and the

> people would have done more. That's just my opinion.

>

April 11, 2009

Name calling is quite useful. While it doesn't tell us anything at all

about the object of the name calling it tells us quite a lot about he or

she who calls names. If the names are negative it tells us far more

than the the name caller ever would by any other means.

..

>

> Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>

<mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%2\

0Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> val1198 <val1198>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:16 pm (PDT)

>

> Why would anyone here have any reason to call others names?

>

> Val

>

> Posted by: " "

>

> call me what you will.

>

> ____________

> ____________________

> From: Valarie < <mailto:val%40wyosip.com> val@...

> <mailto:val%40wyosip.com>>

>

> Is that the best you can argue? I would never dream of calling you a name

> just because I disagree with you.

April 11, 2009

The present mess MOL started in 1977, long before Bush became president.

It was legislation passed by liberal democrats [ the 1977 Community

Reinvestment Act] that changed the requirement for lenders to issue

mortgages from being the ability to repay the loan to some dumb liberal

politically correct criteria. That legislation provided regulation that,

along with the many hundreds of millions of dollars of lawsuits

eventually created the situation in which the ability to repay a loan

was not a major consideration of obtaining the loan. The real estate

boom culminated in the bubble because poor and middle class citizens who

could not afford mortgages were still able to get them, so sales boomed.

Prices and sales increased, and flippers got into the act; the whole

thing fed upon itself. And obviously, at some point the balloon had to

pop; once it became apparent how many people couldn't repay the loans.

If you don't think a trillion dollar deficit by Bush was a good idea

what do you think of Obama's projected deficit several times that? Oh, I

forgot; Obama is going to pay it off. Right. Whose dollars do you think

he will use???

Here's one view of the specific facts:

..

>

> The Government-Created Subprime *Mortgage* Meltdown

>

> *by J. DiLorenzo <mailto:TDilo@...>**

> by J. DiLorenzo *

>

<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2 & url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/diloren\

zo125.html & title=The%20Government-Created%20Subprime%20Mortgage%20Meltdown & topic\

=political_opinion>

>

> The thousands of *mortgage* defaults and foreclosures in the

> " subprime " housing market (i.e., *mortgage* holders with poor credit

> ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy

> that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers.

> The policy in question is the *1977* Community Reinvestment Act (CRA),

> which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what

> the supporters of the Act call " communities of color " that they might

> not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria.

>

> The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who

> supported the administration and were often rewarded for their

> support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they

> benefited from. These included various " neighborhood organizations, "

> as they like to call themselves, such as " ACORN " (Association of

> Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim

> that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one

> seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking

> Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100

> billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.

>

> So-called " community groups " like ACORN benefit /themselves/ from the

> CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion. The CRA is

> enforced by four federal government bureaucracies: the Fed, the

> Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and the

> Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The law is set up so that any

> bank merger, branch expansion, or new branch creation can be postponed

> or prohibited by any of these four bureaucracies if a CRA " protest " is

> issued by a " community group. " This can cost banks great sums of

> money, and the " community groups " understand this perfectly well. It

> is their leverage. They use this leverage to get the banks to give

> /them/ millions of dollars as well as promising to make a certain

> amount of bad loans in their communities.

>

> A man named Bruce Marks became quite notorious during the last decade

> for pressuring banks to earmark literally billions of dollars to his

> organization, the " Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. " He

> once boasted to the /New York Times/ that he had " won " loan

> commitments totaling $3.8 *billion *from Bank of America, First Union

> Corporation, and the Fleet Financial Group. And that is just one

> " community group " operating in one city – Boston.

>

> Banks have been placed in a Catch 22 situation by the CRA: If they

> comply, they know they will have to suffer from more loan defaults. If

> they don’t comply, they face financial penalties and, worse yet, their

> business plans for mergers, branch expansions, etc. can be blocked by

> CRA protesters, which can cost a large corporation like Bank of

> America billions of dollars. Like most businesses, they have largely

> buckled under and have surrendered to their bureaucratic masters.

>

> Consequently, banks in every community in America have been forced to

> hold a portfolio of bad loans, euphemistically referred to as

> " subprime " loans. In order to compensate themselves for the added risk

> of extending these loans, many lenders have increased the lending fees

> associated with *mortgage* loans. This is simply an indirect way of

> doing what banks always do – and what they must do to remain solvent:

> charging effectively higher rates of interest on riskier loans.

>

> But this is discriminatory!, complained the " community organizations. "

> Thus, if one browses the ACORN web site <http://www.acorn.org/>, one

> can read of their boasts of having " predatory lending laws " passed in

> numerous states which outlaw such fees, prohibiting banks from

> protecting themselves from the added risk involved in making forced

> loans to " subprime " borrowers.

>

> These are price control laws, and price controls always cause

> shortages. Normally, banks would respond to such laws by extending

> fewer riskier loans. But in this case the banks are /forced /to

> continue making the marginal loans by their bureaucratic masters at

> the Fed and the other three federal bureaucracies mentioned above.

> So-called predatory lending laws therefore force the banks to " eat "

> the losses. This is undoubtedly a contributing factor to the

> bankruptcy of dozens of *mortgage* lenders over the past year.

>

> Then of course there is the issue of the Fed’s monetary policy having

> created the housing bubble, characterized by a spectacular escalation

> of real estate values in every American city over the past decade or

> so. This created a further problem for the financial institutions that

> are victimized by the CRA. They are forced to make a certain amount of

> bad loans, but because of the Fed-created explosion in housing prices,

> many thousands of subprime borrowers no longer qualified, by a long

> stretch, for conventional mortgages based on their incomes.

>

> The only way these borrowers could qualify for their *mortgage* loans

> (even ignoring their bad credit ratings) was to take out adjustable

> rate mortgages, some of which had astonishingly low first-year rates

> in the 3 percent range, and sometimes lower. This is what has largely

> fueled the subprime *mortgage* meltdown – the inability of thousands

> of subprime borrowers to afford their mortgages now that their rates

> have adjusted upward. Thus, the combination of the Fed’s enforcement

> of the CRA (with the help of political pressure groups like ACORN) and

> its post 9/11 monetary policy in general are the reasons for the

> bursting real estate bubble and the " subprime " *mortgage* meltdown.

>

> //////////Don’t expect to read about this in the " mainstream media, "

> however, which generally views groups like ACORN as heroic champions

> of the poor, laws like the CRA as anti-discrimination laws, and places

> /all /of the blame for the subprime *mortgage* meltdown on greedy

> capitalists, especially *mortgage* brokers. Encouraged by such

> reporting, the odious Senator Schumer of New York has promised

> federal *legislation* that will reign in these miscreants, while the

> Bush administration is proposing an indirect bank bailout by having

> the Federal Housing Administration cover many of the bad " subprime "

> loans. This will create what economists call a " moral hazard " by

> encouraging even more bad loans to be extended in the future. Every

> banker in America will be glad to extend loans (at high rates of

> interest) to the most uncreditworthy borrowers if he thinks there is

> no possibility of default with the FHA effectively guaranteeing the loan.

>

> /September 6, 2007/

>

> / J. DiLorenzo [send him mail <mailto:TDilo@...>] /professor

> of economics at Loyola College in land and the author of //The

> Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an

> Unnecessary War

> <http://www.mises.org/store/Real-Lincoln-The-P172C0.aspx?AFID=14>//,

> (Three Rivers Press/Random House). //His latest book is /Lincoln

> Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe

>

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/030733841X/sr=1-1/qid=1153695320/ref=pd_bbs_1/\

104-8208774-0223107?ie=UTF8 & s=books/lewrockwell/>/

> (Crown Forum/Random House).

>

..

I haven't checked all the facts but I already know much of it is

correct. All of it precedes Bush.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:43 pm (PDT)

>

> Of course obama has to spend to get us out of the mess we are in

> because of

> bushie the idiot. Just think we would not be in that much of a hole if

> Dumbo

> didn't create this trillion dollar deficit we inherited.

> The entire world has become unstable not because of Obama, [ he has only

> been in office for 2.5 months] but because of wall street, Citibank; AIG;

> and their own mortgage crisis. I heard all about Europe's mess on the

> BBC.

> That mess was created on Bush's clock, not Obama's.

April 11, 2009

It's pretty complicated. I've seen references to 2, 3, 6, 7 and 10 year

rules. Generally audits are limited to 3 years but there are exceptions.

See below, on check any of many sites on the internet:

..

> The flipside to the 3 year refund rule is that *IRS* only has 3 years

> to examine a filed return by audit in most cases. Now, the tax code is

> complicated and there are exceptions to these rules. If you have

> committed fraud or tax evasion, there is no *statute* for audit. There

> is also a 6 year rule for audit in cases of “substantial omission” of

> 25% or more in income. But for most folks, the three year *statute*

> will apply on audits.

..

I'm striking out completely when I try to find any info about

suspensions of the statute of limitations for IRS debt collections or

audits. Lacking any evidence at all I'd suggest you check to see if you

understood your sources correctly. If you did then please provide some

supporting info [such as a link]. Until then it's just a case of he

said/she said with no supporting evidence for your statements that I can

find at all.

Whatever we write paints a picture of us in the mind of the reader. Name

calling paints a very unflattering picture.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:48 pm (PDT)

>

> steve-

> I am not making up sh#t! this is what i was told by the neighbor and

> my tax

> advisor.

> the government needs money, so IRS has apparently suspended it's rules

> temporarily to go after people who didn't pay up when they should have.

>

> you are the most condescending jerk.

April 11, 2009

IMHO the whole thing was patently stupid. You'd think Bush to be a

dumbass liberal! [ggg]

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:52 pm (PDT)

>

> They were " supposed " to be based on your income. I am not a dependent of

> anyone, lol especially since I made that much money and my friends

> certainly

> are not dependents either. One is a teacher and the other runs a

> non-profit.

> We all filed as singles.

> My point was that those rebates were not dispersed fairly. Why should my

> pals who made far less money than I , only get 300.00 a piece. Why not 600

> for them.

> I accept why I only got 300.

> I have another friend who made more than me and she is single and she got

> 600. Doesn't make sense to me.

April 11, 2009

I didn't mean I doubt your sister makes 4 million dollars a year; I

meant I doubt she's that damned dumb.

As for global warming, tell me what we in the US would have to do to

reduce worldwide carbon emissions by 2% yearly.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:47 am (PDT)

>

> Excuse me? My sister works for NBC as an anchor and she does make over

> 4 mil

> a year.

> She is a liberal democrat and she believes she should pay her fair

> share in

> taxes.

> There are people in that tax bracket that want to do the right thing

> and pay

> more taxes. I know a lot of them. They believe that they can afford to pay

> an extra 3% in taxes if it means that the middle class gets a tax

> break. 3%

> is not that much more compared to the Reagan years.

> As far the environment goes, we have to do something because we are

> screwing

> ourselves out of a planet. The polar ice and the Greenland ice shelf is

> melting at an unprecedented rate and retreating. This is already causing

> huge havoc in the ecosystems of those environments.

> At the rate of the ice retreat, the low lying costal areas will be

> submerged

> and millions of people will be drowned or displaced.

> Obama has always stated, that if someone can come up with a better

> plan than

> his, he is open to hearing it. So, why don't you fly to Washington and

> tell

> him all about it... Lol

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> Well, I don't know your sister but I doubt it. Most people in that

> income bracket are either very adroit at limiting tax liability or taxed

> out the ying-yang. In neither case is the person likely to be

> enthusiastic about increased taxes. I guess is the notable

> exception. See Steve's recent posts.

>

> You're dreaming about Obama's tax plans. His carbon tax alone amounts

> to hundreds of billions of dollars and exactly who do you think is going

> to pay that??? Everything you consume utilizes energy unless you grow

> it [and even then it uses some]. The poor will be the hardest hit,

> because they spend a disproportionate percentage of income on

> necessities. The price of essentially everything you buy and every

> service you consume will go up.

>

> Probably his most insidious tax is the inflation he is building into our

> future with the trillions of dollars printed and dumped into

> circulation. Is there any possible way to avoid that???

>

> I don't yet know how the carbon tax would effect imports. Unless

> there's some way to equalize the costs between production within the US

> and elsewhere then what productivity we still have would have an

> incentive to disappear. Does anyone know if that is addressed?

>

April 11, 2009

They can go back 10 years in case of suspected fraud.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20B\

ig%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:03 am (PDT)

>

> Then why are they going back 10 years then?

> go piss off

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> The IRS cannot change the law. Don't make up sh*t.

>

> Steve

April 12, 2009

PISS OFF

-- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

Thy

Yeah, how are they going to pay their cell phone bills if government doesn't

confiscate resources from YOU?

Val

Posted by: " Nancie Barnett "

Want to

tell the millions that they can't have their monthly checks? What are these

people going to do if they don't get the check?? How are they going to feed

their families?? Pay the car note? Pay the mortgage or rent? Pay for gas so

they can drive the car??

April 12, 2009

That is your choice, but my mum does not want any strangers living in the

house. She has a friggin right to refuse, as I think any 88 year old

has maybe even your own mum.

-- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

I guess we should have said, 'sorry, we've got our 4 kids living with us!'

> > >

> > > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> > >

> > > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> > >

> > > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or

$30

> > > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about

$3

> > > per hour.

> > >

> > > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is

pretty

> > > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > > pretty stupid.

> > >

> > > .

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@

> > > > <mailto:matchermaam@

> >

>

?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%2

>

> > %5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > > > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> > > >

> > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:36 am (PDT)

> > > >

> > > > I agree about illegal aliens. As far as the minimum wage is

concerned,

>

> > > > how much does it cost you to feed your family per person per week?

Why

>

> > > > do you think it's all right for you to be able to feed yourself and

> > > > your family, but you don't support fair treatment of all Americans

to

> > > > get a decent wage (not that minimum wage is decent, but it's a

start).

>

> > > > With homes being what they cost, food up in price every week, gas

> > > > going crazy, heat and electric being ridiculous, why do you object

to

> > > > people who are WORKING and not sponging off the government (which I

> > > > know you don't like) being able to house, clothe and feed their

> > families?

> > > >

> > > > Roni

> > >

> >

April 12, 2009

Plus, you have a husband, aka a man living in your home. Big deterrent.

I am single at the moment so it is only my mum and I.

-- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

I guess we should have said, 'sorry, we've got our 4 kids living with us!'

> > >

> > > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> > >

> > > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> > >

> > > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or

$30

> > > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about

$3

> > > per hour.

> > >

> > > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is

pretty

> > > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > > pretty stupid.

> > >

> > > .

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@

> > > > <mailto:matchermaam@

> >

>

?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%2

>

> > %5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > > > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> > > >

> > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:36 am (PDT)

> > > >

> > > > I agree about illegal aliens. As far as the minimum wage is

concerned,

>

> > > > how much does it cost you to feed your family per person per week?

Why

>

> > > > do you think it's all right for you to be able to feed yourself and

> > > > your family, but you don't support fair treatment of all Americans

to

> > > > get a decent wage (not that minimum wage is decent, but it's a

start).

>

> > > > With homes being what they cost, food up in price every week, gas

> > > > going crazy, heat and electric being ridiculous, why do you object

to

> > > > people who are WORKING and not sponging off the government (which I

> > > > know you don't like) being able to house, clothe and feed their

> > families?

> > > >

> > > > Roni

> > >

> >

April 12, 2009

Do you do back ground checks on the people living with you?? How do you know

the stranger you take it isn't a pedophile or convicted felon?

-- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

I agree...she has a right to refuse, but that's a conservative opinion...

> > > >

> > > > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > > > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> > > >

> > > > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> > > >

> > > > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or

> $30

> > > > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about

> $3

> > > > per hour.

> > > >

> > > > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is

> pretty

> > > > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > > > pretty stupid.

> > > >

> > > > .

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@

> > > > > <mailto:matchermaam@

> > >

> >

>

?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%2

>

> >

> > > %5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > > > > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> > > > >

> > > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:36 am (PDT)

> > > > >

> > > > > I agree about illegal aliens. As far as the minimum wage is

> concerned,

> >

> > > > > how much does it cost you to feed your family per person per week?

> Why

> >

> > > > > do you think it's all right for you to be able to feed yourself

and

> > > > > your family, but you don't support fair treatment of all Americans

> to

> > > > > get a decent wage (not that minimum wage is decent, but it's a

> start).

> >

> > > > > With homes being what they cost, food up in price every week, gas

> > > > > going crazy, heat and electric being ridiculous, why do you object

> to

> > > > > people who are WORKING and not sponging off the government (which

I

> > > > > know you don't like) being able to house, clothe and feed their

> > > families?

> > > > >

> > > > > Roni

> > > >

> > >

April 12, 2009

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: cindy.seeley <cindy.seeley@...>

Subject: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 12:33 AM

I guess we should have said, 'sorry, we've got our 4 kids living with us!'

> > >

> > > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> > >

> > > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> > >

> > > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or $30

> > > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about $3

> > > per hour.

> > >

> > > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is pretty

> > > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > > pretty stupid.

> > >

> > > .

> > >

> > > >

> > > > Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@

> > > > <mailto:matchermaam@

> >

> ?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%2

>

> > %5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > > > matchermaam <matchermaam>

> > > >

> > > > Thu Apr 9, 2009 10:36 am (PDT)

> > > >

> > > > I agree about illegal aliens. As far as the minimum wage is concerned,

>

> > > > how much does it cost you to feed your family per person per week? Why

>

> > > > do you think it's all right for you to be able to feed yourself and

> > > > your family, but you don't support fair treatment of all Americans to

> > > > get a decent wage (not that minimum wage is decent, but it's a start).

>

> > > > With homes being what they cost, food up in price every week, gas

> > > > going crazy, heat and electric being ridiculous, why do you object to

> > > > people who are WORKING and not sponging off the government (which I

> > > > know you don't like) being able to house, clothe and feed their

> > families?

> > > >

> > > > Roni

> > >

> >

April 12, 2009

Nancie Barnett wrote:

>

> THAT is what I told steve. I already know that, james. he was the ONE who

> said i was lying.

> looks like he is the liar.

I recall you saying that the IRS changed its own rules, so they could go

back 10 years for a routine audit. The IRS does not change laws enacted

into the CFR. Fraud has never had a limit. Steve quoted the CFR accurately.

Chuck

April 12, 2009

ROFL I was thinking the same thing as I read that!

Traveling? Know someone who is? Use my travelocity site www.travelfhtm

com/crystalwright

-- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> Crystal, history is written by the victors or survivors. There isn't

> any one set of " facts " stored away somewhere that you can access to find

> out " what really happened " . Even the best we have is based upon

> conjecture, incomplete or missing facts, or selective inclusion or

> exclusion of same. Suppose Germany or Japan had won WW2: Do you really

> think the history books would resemble what we have now??? 's

> beloved Nazis would probably be heroes.

>

> Don't get me wrong: We have some GREAT historical records. But it

> takes almost a lifetime of research covering many diverse authors to

> come to have a pretty good idea as to what were the real stories in any

> major historical event or era.

>

April 12, 2009

BECAUSE that is what the tax advisor told me!!!

-- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

Thy

Nancie Barnett wrote:

>

> THAT is what I told steve. I already know that, james. he was the ONE who

> said i was lying.

> looks like he is the liar.

I recall you saying that the IRS changed its own rules, so they could go

back 10 years for a routine audit. The IRS does not change laws enacted

into the CFR. Fraud has never had a limit. Steve quoted the CFR accurately.

Chuck

April 12, 2009

Then tell me why we shouldn't make the minimum wage $20 per hour? You

can't. If you try it will violate the logic of your position.

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:21 pm (PDT)

>

> The reason there needs to be minimum wage laws are because if there

> weren't,

> some of the companies would pay a nickel if they could get away with

> it. It's

> the reason the law was put into effect in the first place.

>

> Roni

> <>Just because something

> isn't seen doesn't mean it's

> not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:01 PM

>

> One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> benefits for the most people than any system in history.

>

> Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

>

> Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or $30

> per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about $3

> per hour.

>

> NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is pretty

> stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> pretty stupid.

>

April 12, 2009

C'mon . I know you know that minimum wage and a living wage are two

different things.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 6:41 PM

If you're right we should raise the minimum wage to $20 per hour. You

can't have any empathy for the poor slob trying to support his family on

$6 or $8 per hour minimum wage if you don't agree.

..

>

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:01 pm (PDT)

>

> Right so people should just keep getting paid wages that are not a living

> wage, so that they can never save anything and stay living pay check to

> paycheck and never be able to stop struggling everyday.

> I see that you do not have empathy and never will have empathy . End of

> story.

>

> -- Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

>

> , those supporting minimum wage laws don't comprehend that increased

> minimum wages cost jobs (employers no longer can afford to keep as many

> people at the higher wages), increase prices (companies are going to

> recoup

> the additional costs somehow) and contrary to what the wishful thinks

> believe, effectively puts more people into poverty because those who are

> making anything over minimum wage, even so much as 25 cents don't get

> a pay

> increase yet have to incorporate all of the additional costs into their

> budget...been there, done that! It does nothing except disrupt/destabilize

> the economy even further...

>

> >

> > One: The free market system works, in that it provides the most

> > benefits for the most people than any system in history.

> >

> > Two: Minimum wage is a total perversion of the free market system.

> >

> > Three: If it works why don't we just set the minimum wage at $20 or $30

> > per hour. That should REALLY help those whose actual output is about $3

> > per hour.

> >

> > NOTE: If you can follow the logic of why this last suggestion is pretty

> > stupid you will then understand why minimum wage laws in general are

> > pretty stupid.

> >

> > .

------------------------------------

April 12, 2009

is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and so is Lieberman. Clinton was not

guilty of the things they tried him for. He was guilty of lying about that

tramp.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 6:52 PM

>

> Wow! I had almost come to believe I was the only person on this list

> aware of the inconvenient facts that liberals/democrats would prefer to

> hide about our present difficulties. I'm sure there's plenty of fault

> to go around, but to blame it all on the republicans while ignoring the

> well documented guilt of the democrats is to me totally dishonest.

>

> If any of you liberals doubt these facts just do a bit of investigating

> beyond your propaganda sheets.

>

> .

>

> >

> > Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

> <mailto:val%40wyosip.com>

> > <mailto:val@... <mailto:val%40wyosip.com>?Subject=%20Re%

>

3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism\

%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> > val1198 <val1198

> <val1198>>

> >

> > Thu Apr 9, 2009 9:22 am (PDT)

> >

> > News flash! There are 20 million illegals in this country taking

> American

> > jobs.

> >

> > Fannie and Freddie failed because Congress, under and Clinton,

> > mandated banks loan to unworthy borrowers. Five years ago, Geo Bush

> tried

> > to rein them in and Barney screamed " discrimination against poor

> > people. " Bush backed down. Republicans didn't fight. McCain also

> > tried a couple of years ago but his bill died in a Democrat controlled

> > committee.

> >

> > There is nothing above with which to argue. Those are all provable

> facts.

------------------------------------

April 12, 2009

People in the inner city that kill other people do it primarily for drugs. Lots

of them make plenty of money, and no piddling welfare check is going to satisfy

them in the slightest. They wouldn't even bother to sign up. Have you ever

actually lived in a city and got to understand how things work?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

hypothyroidism

Date: Sunday, April 12, 2009, 6:56 PM

I said that a particular course of action would result in fewer deaths.

Since when is fewer deaths a cruel statement??? You do not DIRECTLY

advocate more deaths; but you advocate a position that results in more

deaths. I oppose your position that results in more deaths.

Providing support for the approximate 90% of welfare recipients who

actually could do better for themselves results in the inner city ghetto

slums where the death rate is so much higher than we should allow.

That is the result of modern liberal thought.

..

> Posted by: " Nancie Barnett " deifspirit@...

>

<mailto:deifspirit@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%\

20Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> aspenfairy1 <aspenfairy1>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:20 pm (PDT)

>

> This sentence is from your bloody post , not mine.:

> <We would actually

> > have FEWER deaths if we eliminated ALL welfare and let those die who

> > could not provide for themselves; >

> I was responding to your short sighted CRUEL statement!

>

> I DON " T advocate more deaths . What BS. You are the one who is advocating

> more deaths . By not helping people when they are in need, you are

> contributing to their social, physical and emotional state of being. That

> slam is completely RIGHT WING BS.

> Providing them governmental aid is not contributing to their deaths,

> providing them with food stamps is giving them life. No food stamps, more

> starvation, because food banks can't keep up with the demand and smaller

> regional charities and food banks are going broke dealing with the

> MILLIONS

> who have lost their jobs and are running through their savings.

> What about unemployment benefits?? They are governmental assistance.

> Want to

> tell the millions that they can't have their monthly checks? What are

> these

> people going to do if they don't get the check?? How are they going to

> feed

> their families?? Pay the car note? Pay the mortgage or rent? Pay for

> gas so

> they can drive the car?? We already have a shortage of shelter beds in the

> homeless shelter networks. There is not enough emergency housing to go

> around already even without this economic crisis. What do you want

> people to

> do? Live on the street? Under overpasses? Live in their cars, where if

> they

> live in a cold environment, they will freeze. They are not allowed to

> sleep

> in churches in most cities because of fire code regulations, so that

> is out.

>

> Even where I live, near the beach, it gets down to the 40's to 50's and it

> is DAMP cold that cuts right through you. we have had an increase in

> people

> freezing to death because there is not enough cold weather shelters.

> my state has a republican governor and he still thinks that we need to

> extend social servce benefits to the needy because to do otherwise is

> short

> sighted, cruel, inhumane and unethical.

> living without running water is not criminal james, as long as you have

> acess to clean water.

> i am glad you rose above it and created a nice life for yourself.

> BUT, receiving governmental assistance would not have tied you to a

> life on

> welfare. it is clear that you had opurtunity to go to school and better

> yourself. many other people are less fortunate and don't have the

> education

> to get into univeresity level in the first place.

>

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> One: You should read RACE AND CULTURE by Sowell, who totally

> blows your opinions out of the water with facts.

>

> Two: I indicate one course of action that would result in FEWER deaths

> of the poor, and you find that reprehensible??? You advocate MORE

> deaths??? Actually, you do; but you don't know it. I lived the

> poverty you observed from the outside. I was fortunate that I didn't

> have someone like you to " help " me to remain in that condition for the

> rest of my life. A child born in 1941 in rural Mississippi and raised

> by my mom and my alcoholic father on sharecropper's sweat. I never

> lived in a house with running water or a toilet until I was grown and

> left home. Unless you have a similar experience you don't _really_ know

> a damned thing about poverty. Living it gives a totally different view

> from seeing it during your day job and going to a comfortable home at

> night.

>

------------------------------------

April 12, 2009

What urban areas have you lived in ?

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re:

> Re: Thy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Friday, April 10, 2009, 7:19 PM

>

> The " trickle down theory " is a straw man constructed by democrats to

> describe what they say is official republican policy. AFAIK it never was.

>

> However, it does work. Prime example is the small towns of such utter

> poverty that we can hardly imagine in Somali where the modern pirates

> live. The " trickle down " from the riches of the pirates has enriched

> the entire population of the towns.

>

> If you stop to think about it, it has to work. If someone gains wealth

> they have to spend it in order to obtain goods and services [if they

> save it they don't get any more goods and services]. That means jobs

> and incomes for the workers who provide the goods and services; some of

> whom may live in Indonesia or some other place where an income of a

> dollar or two per day puts you in the upper percentage of the country's

> wealthy.

>

> But don't let facts or logic interfere with your opinion...

>

> .

------------------------------------

April 13, 2009

If he was in agreement with me then it probably means he's a pretty

smart guy! [ggg] Seriously, I think I've heard the name but I don't

watch tv and I don't know who he is.

>

> Posted by: " Crystal " sweetnwright@...

>

<mailto:sweetnwright@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%2\

0Big%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> sweetenloe1 <sweetenloe1>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:35 pm (PDT)

>

> That was weird ! I was reading your post and you said Barney

> the

> SAME time Hannity did. You know what that means right?

> CW

>

> Traveling? Know someone who is? Use my travelocity site www.travelfhtm

> com/crystalwright

> -- Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re:

> Thy

>

> The present economic mess pretty much started in 1977 so I doubt Bush

> had a whole lot to do with it. But the liberal democrats who passed the

> legislation changing the criteria for obtaining a mortgage from the

> time tested ability to repay same to some stupid liberal agenda item

> certainly did. It's really a bunch of liberal democrat chickens coming

> home to roost. As late as 2006 Bush attempted to rein in Fanny and

> Freddy but the democrats not only scuttled that effort, the derisively

> attacked Bush's idea that there was even a problem. Barney [among

> others] utterly ridiculed the idea that any action was needed. He

> stated that there was no risk to the public whatsoever, so no action was

> needed. Democrats overwhelmingly supported that position. You're going

> to blame that on Bush and the republicans too, right?

>

April 13, 2009

I don't know if you guys know it but you can get cell phone service for $10 a

month. I consider my cell phone an insurance policy. I don't use it unless I

have to if I'm in some kind of trouble (car, locked out, sick, hurt, can't find

where I'm going). After my husband died, I felt very vulnerable, so I got one

for these purposes.

Roni

<>Just because something

isn't seen doesn't mean it's

not there<>

From: <res075oh@...>

Subject: Re: Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

hypothyroidism

Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 11:53 AM

Until recently I was playing bass guitar at a jam session for mostly

seniors every Monday night. We often had one or more homeless men stop

by, I'm sure more for the free food than for the music. I had to laugh

recently when during a song one of the homeless men jumped up out of his

seat and ran outside to answer his cell phone...

..

>

> Posted by: " Valarie " val@...

>

<mailto:val@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Cows%2C%20Geopolitics%2C%20and%20Bi\

g%20Business%20Re%3A%20%5Bhypothyroidism%5D%20Re%3A%20Thy>

> val1198 <val1198>

>

> Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:15 pm (PDT)

>

> Yeah, how are they going to pay their cell phone bills if government

> doesn't

> confiscate resources from YOU?

>

> Val

------------------------------------

Sign In

Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business Re: Re: Thy

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites