Text 687, 321 rader
Skriven 2007-04-30 09:52:18 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till en text av bob klahn
Ärende: More Dan Ceppa lies!
============================
30 Apr 07 00:34, bob klahn wrote to Roy Witt:
bk> ...
bk>>>>> Well, I'm closer to a true consevative than you are, but still
bk>>>>> not a conservative.
RW>>>> Tax and spend and social programs where the government
RW>>>> taxes the working man to support the non-working man isn't
RW>>>> very conservative in my book.
bk>>> Tax and spend is very conservative, it's called pay as you go.
RW>> You know what I meant by tax and spend and it was not
RW>> conservative.
bk> I know you meant what you want gets funded.
What I want and get, got funded by me, my employers and other payers, over
the years. That doesn't mean it's not a 'social' program...Oh Wait! It's
got to be a social program because that's the name of it.
RW>> Tax and spend, in this particluar political term, means
RW>> taxing the people so that you can spend more money on
RW>> socialist programs...programs that the socialistic Democrat
RW>> party invented...
bk> You mean like EITC, which republicans invented? Look at the
bk> records. LBJ's intention was a jobs based great society. It was
bk> republicans who turned it into a welfare based system.
LOL! Sure they did, under a democrat majority controlled Congress. Who
signed it into law again? That's right, LBJ.
bk>>> As to taxing the working man, that's traditional.
RW>> Democrat party policy.
bk> Every where. The only sources of income are working people and
bk> accumulated wealth.
Of course. How much does the left wing whacko, George Soros contribute?
bk> For retirees, the accumulation tends to be small, and for the
bk> wealthy, well, they buy administrations and congressmen so they don't
bk> pay as much.
Kickback for voting in the administrations tax increases, one was even
passed to increase taxes retroactivily, six months from the day the LLWWs
passed it and the LLWW president signed it.
bk>>> As to supporting the non-working man, caring for the disabled or
bk>>> the
bk>>> elderly is an old tradition. Predates the existance of this
bk>>> country in the colonies. More often, though, it's women who are
bk>>> cared for.
RW>> LOL! Yeah, ghetto black women...
bk> There are more welfare recipients in rural areas than in the
bk> ghettos,
Nahhhh, rural people tend to work for a living, if they're able.
bk> and more white women than black,
LOL! Now that's the biggest LLWW lie I've heard in a long time.
bk> and now there are more poor in the suburbs than in the cities. The
bk> times they are a
bk> changing.
bk>>> And as long as the govt makes it policy to keep people
bk>>> underemployed or unemployed, it's the govts responsibility to
bk>>> see to those people.
RW>> Sure it is...like they've been beating the concrete to find
RW>> work and are all worn out by it. More often than not,
bk> What part of "govt makes it policy to keep people unemployed"
bk> didn't get through to you"?
RW>> they're lazy and are child producing welfare gathering low
RW>> life; the more kids they have, the more they get paid.
bk> By a very small amount. And the average welfare family has fewer
bk> children than the average non-welfare family.
bk>>> And meeting your responsibilies should be a conservative virtue.
RW>> When they get a job and stop overpopulating the ghetto,
RW>> I'll think about it.
bk> When there are enough jobs so suburbanites and small town
bk> dwellers can find jobs get back to me.
bk>>>>>>> ...
bk> ...
bk>>>>> I was in support. Still say the grunts are the ones the rest of
bk>>>>> us were there for.
RW>> So, you've now changed your story...before they were heros,
RW>> but now they're grunts that we provided for. I'll bet you
bk> That is what the entire rest of the military is there for. They
bk> are the heroes, the rest of us just the support.
RW>> can do the twist too.
bk> Not for many years.
RW>>>> I was there before you support, and without my expertise
RW>>>> and service, you and the grunts would have notthing to
RW>>>> fight with. In fact, I'm more important than you, who
RW>>>> merely wharehoused and distributed.
bk>>> I never wharehoused or delivered, except to the end user, as the
bk>>> tech involved.
RW>> I didn't either, I just built it...
bk> Without someone to use it all you did was a waste.
bk>>> However, there was no good reason you could not have served in the
bk>>> military, then produced the weapons and material needed. Lots of
bk>>> people have done that.
RW>> That's true, but my draft board (the government) decided
RW>> that I would be of more value where I was. I didn't argue
bk> Everybody's got an excuse.
RW>> with them. My 1961-66 draft status was 3A, which means that
RW>> I could have been called up (after the 1As and 2As), but
RW>> they never called... After that job was over in 74, they
RW>> chose not to change my draft status...probably because I
RW>> was into my mid 30s. I did give some thought to joining the
RW>> Coast Guard around 1980 though.
bk> I doubt they would have accepted you.
bk>>>>> Except when I was in SAC, then we were there to blow up the
bk>>>>> world.
RW>>>> With an arsonal provided by people of my calibur. Without
bk>>> And maintained by people of high caliber.
RW>> LOL! How does a maintainer become of higher calibur than
RW>> the inventor and manufacturer?
bk> Well, aside from the fact that I did not say *HIGHER*, there is
bk> the fact that we had to figure out what the manufacturer screwed
bk> up.
RW>>>> it, you wouldn't be flying, let alone bombing the world.
bk>>> And a great many of those people of your caliber served in the
bk>>> military, often as grunts.
RW>> Not possible, unless they were hiding from something.
RW>> People who know what they're doing, recognize those who
RW>> also know what they're doing. They'll be promoted sooner or
RW>> later.
bk> Until then they were grunts. And the draft was 2 years. Which is
bk> little time to promote to much of anything. But plenty of time
bk> to become a hero.
bk>>>>>>> And no more honorable way to serve.
RW>>>>>> There's more than one way to serve and all are honorable.
bk>>>>> None more honorable. Or even as honorable. IMO.
RW>>>> There's no honor in being so useless as to have someone
RW>>>> shove a firearm in your hand and telling you to give your
RW>>>> life for your country.
bk>>> The honor is in being one of those who will take that risk, and
bk>>> do it for ungrateful people like you.
RW>> I'm not the ungrateful person you want to address that to.
RW>> Try Harry Reid and the rest of the Congressional traitors.
bk> They are not the ones trading the blood of American Soldiers for
bk> the profits of big oil. That's Bush.
bk>>>>>>> Though you do demonstrate the truth that conservatives hate
bk>>>>>>> our
bk>>>>>>> vets.
RW>>>>>> Naaaa, we don't hate anyone, but we despise assholes like
RW>>>>>> you who think surrendering to the enemy is the only way.
bk>>>>> Your lot are giving our enemies everything they want.
RW>>>> LOL! The Senate Majority leader who said the war in Iraq is
RW>>>> 'lost' (thus emboldening the enemy) is not part of my lot.
bk>>> Ask why the military in Iraq is not being allowed to talk to the
bk>>> press.
RW>> You must not be watching the correct news source...they
RW>> talk to the media all the time...they're pissed that Pelozi
RW>> and Reid have sold them out to the enemy.
bk> Are they? Do they get to talk freely to the press? No
bk> censorship? How about the fact that 70% of the troops there
bk> supported the democrat's phased withdrawel.
bk>>> Our continuing presence in Iraq is what the enemy wants.
RW>> That's good news...the sooner they're all there, the sooner
RW>> our guys can kill them all and then go home.
bk> They ain't even beginning to kill them all. Them all is
bk> spreading out to the rest of the Middle east.
RW>>>> Nor is that traitorous bitch majority leader in the house.
bk>>> Yet your previous senate and house aided bush in giving al Qaeda
bk>>> what they wanted.
RW>> LOL! They gave them lots of lead...I don't know why they
RW>> would want it, but they're welcome to it.
bk> They stopped and let Bin Laden escape. I suspect it was
bk> deliberate, because they want Bin Laden to continue to threaten
bk> the us. So they can profit from the infrastructue construction
bk> in hunging him down.
bk>>>>> You have given Bin Laden what he wanted, the US out of Saudi
bk>>>>> Arabia,
RW>>>> I'm sure you're privey to what Bin Laden wants, being a
bk>>> He said it. Just like Hitler said what he wanted in Mein Kampf,
RW>> Ahhh, but not lately...he wrote it down before he died.
bk>>> Bin Ladin repeatedly made public statements and published
bk>>> remarks saying what he wanted. And one of his top lieutenants
bk>>> said Iraq was Al Qaeda's chosen battle ground.
RW>> Well, at least we didn't disapoint them...
bk> That's the point. Your enemies are supposed to be disappointed.
RW>>>> traitorous asshole yourself.
bk>>> You, in your desire to break our army, are the traitor.
RW>> You're a fucking liar...you're part of the problem America
RW>> is having with the defeatist left wing whacko party...
bk> Colin Powell has said the US army is breaking. Pat Buchanan said
bk> perpetual war destroys democracies. Neither is a democrat. One
bk> was part of the bush push for war, the other served under
bk> reagan.
bk>>>>> and
bk>>>>> Iraq as the battle field between Islam and the West. That and a
bk>>>>> massive recruiting program for al Qaeda.
bk>>>>> When, not if, the terrorists come to this country it will be
bk>>>>> your lot who made it happen.
RW>>>> LOL! We haven't given them the the open door that your lot
RW>>>> has given them.
bk>>> Yes, you did.
RW>> Bulllshit...your whacko liberal party is the problem.
bk> We didn't break the army, your kind did.
bk>>>>> Unless we can turn it around soon, that is.
RW>>>> Yeah, sure. When y'all surrender, then they'll be welcomed
RW>>>> by the traitorous bastards in your lot.
bk>>> When we pull our troops back to this country,
RW>> The surrender will come after inauguration day, January,
RW>> 2009...if ya'll can win the WH in 2008...but the way it
RW>> looks now, that's not going to happen.
bk> Yes, it looks like it will. Then we pull back our army, rebuild
bk> it, and settle the problems of the Middle East.
bk>>> we can refurbish and retrain and re-equip them, then we will once
bk>>> more have a force that made the Arab world tremble.
RW>> LOL! They're were tremebling, but now they know there will
RW>> be a surrender in 2009, if y'all can win the WH...heh, heh,
RW>> heh...
bk> The stopped trembling and started laughing when Bush showed he
bk> couldn't win in Iraq.
bk> BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
bk> ... It ain't what ya don't know, but what you know that aint so
bk> that'l hurt ya. * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
bk> --- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
bk> * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but
that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|