[bubba99]

While we are discussing Big vs. small, the same government is trying to remove the protections of the constitution. First the patriot act, and now the coup de gras – a bill to allow the US military to arrest without warrant, and hold without charges US citizens here in the United States.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being

If you believe that big government corrupts, wait till the bureaucrats get this power

[bubba99]

I would like to bring to the discussion the recent AT&T F/U that will cost those of us foolish enough to still own ATT stock 4 Billion $$$. Randall Stephenson will continue as CEO in spite of the really bad decision to guarantee T-Mobile a 4 Billion Dollar non-completion fee if they could not get regulatory approval. Randall and the board will continue as part of the .1%, while ATT employees who lost the wrong client are toast.

Corzine who stole 1.2 Billion will remain in relative comfort, while common thieves are in jail for life.

OWS is fueled by the complete lack of accountability of the .1%, while the 99% go to jail for the smallest transgression. Like the royalty that came before them, the .1% actually believe they are worthy and divine, and deserve all they get no matter how bad their decision process – no matter who is put out of work or how much is stolen(Corzine).

OWS will continue to grow until either all the possible police power is brought to crush it, or the revolution actually takes hold, and democracy is taken back.

[bubba99]

Back in the day when I went to Berkeley, the tuition was only $212.24/quarter. There was one administrator for every 10 classroom employees – teachers/professors. Now that relationship is upside down. More administrators than classroom employee.

Tuition is now in the tens of thousands per semester. For those who believe that education is for the benefit of the students, think again. The major beneficiaries are the employees of the university system. With a chant of “we must protect the quality of education” they have improved the quality of their pay checks, at the expense of the students.

The loan scam has just been the vehicle to fund the new found legion of administrators and retirements that few/none of us will ever achieve. Without the loans, education would still need to be affordable. The loans bought the students very little compared to 40 years ago.

[bubba99]

deleted

[bubba99]

deleted

[bubba99]

deleted

[bubba99]

deleted

[bubba99]

deleted

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs

Al
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs

Al
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs

Al
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs

Al
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=bubba99]I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs

Al
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
-[/quote]

Wow, that wasn’t polemic at all, and really fact- filled.

Forgetting that the “moose hunting dolt” was a VP candidate in the 2008 election (not the current one; she’s apparently going to run for Prez in 2012), you conveniently omit Jon Huntsman from your rogue’s gallery. He is none of those things you mention and, in point of fact, has taken a categoric stand against them.

I think you mentioned you’re law enforcement, so that makes your position relative to the Dems and unions pretty straightforward, and thus, I’d imagine, the polemic.

As far as the global warming issue goes, you also conveniently omit Al Gore’s recent rant, when many of his assertions relative to AGW were effectively debunked by that new NASA report, which shot holes in the whole CO2 theory.

Given “Regan’s” (Reagan’s) stance on Communism and the Evil Empire, many of the intelligentsia considered him a “lunitic” (lunatic) as well, back in the day.

Speaking of polemic and cheap shots: I’m absolutely NOT a fan of Michelle Bachmann, and feel she represents the worst sort of politician running, but to call out her husband for being gay, when he is not, is chicken shit. Even if he were gay: So what? Grow up.[/quote]

Allan,

Thank you so much for your considerate response. I truly appreciate your insightful comments.

Have a good day sir. (Have someone in Law enforcement translate this for you)

“Regan is an Anglicized form of the Irish surname Ó Riagáin (“son of Riagáin”) derived from the Irish personal name Riagáin, which meant “little king”. I guess you missed the “pun”

[bubba99]

I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
–

[bubba99]

I think the republicans are trying to lose the presidential race. The herd is really thin, and only represents the lunitic fringe of the party. When did the repubs become the party that:
– denies science (evolution)
– denies global warming
– parades a moose hunting dolt as VP candidate
– has a female candidate married to a gay, gay bashing “gay converter”
– represents only the richest 1% on tax breaks
– embraces the reactionary right christian wack jobs
– wants smaller govt, but insists on preventing a womans right to manage her own body.
– Is willing to let the US default on its financial obligations.

What ever happened to candidates like Lincoln, Teddy Rosevelt, Grant, Eisenhower, Regan? I can’t see any of these past presidents even in the same party as the current candidates.
–

[Author]

Posts