On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:28:49 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:


>"We" get nothing for it. The oil belongs to the lease holders of the
>fields. This is something very few people can comprehend. "We" do not own
>the oil, "they" do.
>
>Paul
>
That right Paul. The oil companies, don't pay for the leases, they
don't pay a severance tax. They don't pay three to four times more
taxes then they make in profit. Then the profits are sent to the
investors (stock holders). You may have some those stocks in your
retirement portfolio.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 23:05:26 -0400, Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Higher taxes have NEVER benefited us as a whole. It you want to give
>>> away
>>> more of your money, give to charity, not funding a government pork
>>> project
>>> or other inefficient program.
>>
>> yep, no one ever benefited from roads, public health, public schools, or
>> national defense. everything you have was wrested from the earth with
>> your
>> own two hands so you deserve EVERY GODDAMN BIT OF IT.
>>
>> my hat's off to you, really.
>>
>> blake
>>
>
> Reading comprehension problems Blake? I said HIGHER taxes. Some taxes are
> necessary, but the number of government employees as a percentage of the
> population is increasing. Government programs are expanding, but much is
> wasted and not helping people at all. If the taxes are held at the same
> percentage the real dollars will increase every year as our incomes
> increase. Raising the percentage is what is going to ruining our economy.
> If you pay 25% this year, 27% next year, 29% the following year, and on and
> on, what happens over time?
>
> The money for your reading education, evidently, was wasted.

so tax rates should be lower now? how much lower? or are they just
perfect the way they are, and a two percent rise wouldn't benefit
*anybody*?

do you think infrastructure maintenance is perfect now? education? food
and drug safety?

blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:50:23 -0700, sf wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:27:02 -0700, Pan > wrote:
>
>>And what was the unemployment percentage until the last year.
>>And what is the historical comparison. And also consider if we got rid
>>of the 5% of the workforce that is illegal aliens ( which is up
>>tremendously since 2000) , what our unemployment rate would be?
>
>Our native unemployed will not do what they do. If they did, there
>would be no jobs for immigrants to fill and there's the logical end of
>the illegal immigration problem.

SF didn't you read the story in the paper. After the raid at the
kosher meat house, there was a line around the block, of Americans,
looking for jobs.

And there is no job classification, nor profession, that illegal
aliens hold a majority.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:25:55 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:


>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>
>No it was in one of his own commercials. It is not rhetoric at all it is his
>voting record. You're quoting a falsehood, not me.
>
>Paul
>> :-)
>
give me a url please.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:25:17 -0600, Gloria P wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:50:37 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>> Paul wrote:
>>>
>>>> They have proposed releasing oil from the Strategtic Reserve, shot down by
>>>> the republicans.
>>> Much as I despise GWB and think he's an idiot and a tool, I have to agree
>>> with him on this one. The Strategic Reserve exists to deal with a critical
>>> shortage of oil, not as a mechanism for lowering oil prices.
>>>
>>> Bob
>>
>> i think you're right about this. the oil should be left there for
>> something *really* catastrophic, not political diddling.
>>
>> blake
>
>
> Do you think it's possible that we'll still have our "strategic oil"
> supply when the rest of the world has run out of oil and has invented a
> new energy source (which we WON'T have because we've got those huge oil
> tanks full--what, a month's supply?--so we don't need no stinkin'
> alternative.) We'll have the last oil in the world when no one else is
> using oil because they're onto something better.
>
> Oil is a finite resource and NOT finding something to replace it is
> what's catastrophic.
>
> gloria p

i agree, we need a different energy source for autos and the like. but
petroleum is damned useful stuff for other things, and it might be nice to
still be sitting on some fifty years from now.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:16:10 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>>> Where in the hell are you getting this from? Please provide some
>>>> references to back it up.
>>>
>>> Here. Take your pick, and ignore the bloggers:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/6majjz
>>
>> yeah, and i hear hussein osama is also gonna replace the presidential
>> limosine with a black helicopter!!! omgomg, stock up on ammo and canned
>> goods now!!
>>
>> blake
>
> I am.

fruitcake.

blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:43:41 GMT, blake murphy
> wrote:


>>
>> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00 one recent
>> year. They live in a house that cost over a million dollars.
>> And you think they are closer to the average "commoner"?????
>
>and they worked for their money, unlike mccain, who married it.
>
>your pal,
>blake

Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
to get an earmark the next year.

He is the standard Chicago politician.

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:00:41 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>
>> "Omelet" > wrote in message
>> news
>>>
>>> You may have already noted that I'm not a fan of an uncontrolled free
>>> market...
>>
>>
>> McCain is. Obama is not. Nor am I.
>>
>> Paul
>
> Please state specifics, with cites.
> (for Obama and McCain).

you mean more specific than 'obama is a commie'?

blake

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:25:55 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Pan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 06:57:42 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>And McCain voted with him 90 percent of the time. That is very important,
>>>Om. McSame is Bush. There is no difference.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>
>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>
> No it was in one of his own commercials. It is not rhetoric at all it is his
> voting record. You're quoting a falsehood, not me.
>
> Paul

yep, i think mccain might have slipped up and actually been telling the
truth on this one.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:05:52 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> enigma > wrote:
>
>> Omelet > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> Ditto. I work in health care, now for a board that has over
>>> 20 hospitals in the system.
>>
>> well, actually you work for the "health industry". if there
>> were not specific laws *requiring* any of those hospitals to
>> provide at least rudimentary care to the poor, they wouldn't.
>> under the free market system, which McCain supports, health
>> care is only going to get more expensive & available to fewer
>> people. while i am not a fan of government health care, i
>> think the "system" needs a good clean out. there is 'for
>> profit' and there is greed...
>> lee
>
> The most expensive part of health care is compliance.
>
> Believe me, I have first hand experience with that! The industry is
> regulated to death.

regulated by the government, or regulated by the insurance companies? do
doctors have to fill out more forms for the government, or for the
insurance companies?

blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:58:53 -0500, Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> Gloria P > wrote:
>
>> And who knows, she may have BORROWED the diamonds from her favorite
>> basketball player's ears. (Yeah, right.)
>> ;-)
>>
>> gloria p
>
> Or, more likely, from Harry Winston, like the Hollywood stars do.

actually, harry *lends* the to hollywood stars so he can *sell* them to
people like cindy.

your pal,
blake

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:12:24 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "blake murphy" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:25:47 -0400, Goomba wrote:
>>
>>> Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ok, that makes sense. I can see how the diamonds would add up quick,
>>>> So it
>>>> was a $300,000.00 outfit as opposed to just the dress. Still, she won't
>>>> wear any of it ever again and you know she could have spent double that
>>>> easily if she wated to. And it is noteworthy because she and her
>>>> husband
>>>> are calling themselves friends of us commoners. They have no clue what
>>>> our
>>>> lives are like. No clue.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00 one recent
>>> year. They live in a house that cost over a million dollars.
>>> And you think they are closer to the average "commoner"?????
>>
>> and they worked for their money, unlike mccain, who married it.
>>
>
> Honestly, I admire your tenacity and patience arguing with morons like this,
> I know you're tired of repeating yourself, though. Let them stew in their
> shit. The election is coming, and when it is over, they'll be braising in
> their bile for at least eight years. Eight.

i hope so. but as we've seen in this thread, there are a lot of nutters
out there.

yourpal,
blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:13:08 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:16:34 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you know McCain begged to be Kerry's running mate? Did you know in 01
>>>> he was poised to switch to the democrat party but then Jim Jeffords went
>>>> Independent and McCain got ****ed and pulled out of the deal? He's not
>>>> what
>>>> he would like you to think he is.
>>>
>>> Many of us already know McCain is a RINO.
>>>
>>> I don't hold it against him...
>>
>> how 'centrist' of you.
>>
>> blake
>
> Thank you.
>
> Frankly, I'm sick of partisanship.
> Let's work for AMERICANS, not the f-ing "parties".
>
> I never have been a partisan voter.

see, here's another clue: a centrist would never refer to someone as a
Republican In Name Only, which usually means not right-wing enough. (just
as DINO's are not left enough for members of that party.) if you're such a
centrist, why should you give a shit whether someone is 'republican'
enough?

blake

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:18:03 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:

> Goomba > : in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose her expenditures support a few, select jobs. How many minimum
>>> wage employees did it take to make the jewelry or the gown?
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>> So you do begrudge her spending her own money....?
>
> Who said anything about begrudging her anything? I don't care how she
> spends her money.
>
> Michael

i think she should spend more on botox. in some pictures, her face looks
almost lifelike.

your pal,
blake

"enigma" > wrote in message
. ..
> Omelet > wrote in
> news >
>> The problem is, we need relief now. It will take time to
>> develop other resources.
>
> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
> occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
> taxes.
> look at all the things that came out of the space race
> though... it was money well spent.
>
http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
. ..
> "enigma" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> Omelet > wrote in
>> news >>
>>> The problem is, we need relief now. It will take time to
>>> develop other resources.
>>
>> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
>> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
>> occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
>> taxes.
>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>> though... it was money well spent.
>>
> http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

This is the guy behind the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry, did you know
that? Not that this reflects either way on his plan.

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> There is no way you could do that in our capitalist system. Unless you
> want to start a government owned oil company that is. That would be the
> only way. And we'd have hell to pay from the other oil companies who
> would screws us from hell to breakfast for ruining their markets.
>

Not sure this compares, but what about government owned mortgage companies?

"cybercat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "enigma" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Omelet > wrote in
>>> news >>>
>>>> The problem is, we need relief now. It will take time to
>>>> develop other resources.
>>>
>>> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
>>> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
>>> occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
>>> taxes.
>>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>>> though... it was money well spent.
>>>
>> http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
>
> This is the guy behind the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry, did you know
> that? Not that this reflects either way on his plan.

No, I didn't. He's just paying a lot for air time lately and I don't see
anyone else trying to get a movement going for alternate energy sources.
I'm all for it. Though I keep waiting to see if he's backing some surprise
candidate that'll be on the ticket out of the blue in Nov. Of course they
won't win, but with what we have to vote for right now, you never know.

"blake murphy" > wrote:>> Honestly, I admire your
tenacity and patience arguing with morons like this,
>> I know you're tired of repeating yourself, though. Let them stew in their
>> shit. The election is coming, and when it is over, they'll be braising in
>> their bile for at least eight years. Eight.
>
> i hope so. but as we've seen in this thread, there are a lot of nutters
> out there.
>
Yes indeed.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:18:03 GMT, Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>
>> Goomba > : in
>> rec.food.cooking
>>
>>> Michael "Dog3" wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose her expenditures support a few, select jobs. How many minimum
>>>> wage employees did it take to make the jewelry or the gown?
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> So you do begrudge her spending her own money....?
>>
>> Who said anything about begrudging her anything? I don't care how she
>> spends her money.
>>
>> Michael
>
> i think she should spend more on botox. in some pictures, her face looks
> almost lifelike.
>
Honestly, that is one uptight looking white woman.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:16:10 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> blake murphy > wrote:
>>
>>>>> Where in the hell are you getting this from? Please provide some
>>>>> references to back it up.
>>>>
>>>> Here. Take your pick, and ignore the bloggers:
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6majjz
>>>
>>> yeah, and i hear hussein osama is also gonna replace the presidential
>>> limosine with a black helicopter!!! omgomg, stock up on ammo and canned
>>> goods now!!
>>>
>>> blake
>>
>> I am.
>
> fruitcake.
>
> blake

It will be too late. Nobody stocks up on fruitcake until after
Thanksgiving.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> There is no way you could do that in our capitalist system. Unless you
>> want to start a government owned oil company that is. That would be the
>> only way. And we'd have hell to pay from the other oil companies who
>> would screws us from hell to breakfast for ruining their markets.
>>
>
> Not sure this compares, but what about government owned mortgage
> companies?

No difference. The march to nationalization aka communism is being brought
to us by the republicans and their hands off approach to regulating
businesses.

Paul
>

"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:25:55 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>>
>>No it was in one of his own commercials. It is not rhetoric at all it is
>>his
>>voting record. You're quoting a falsehood, not me.
>>
>>Paul
>>> :-)
>>
> give me a url please.

Plemty out ther to Google. Here is a quote from a cite referring to
Congressional Quarterly

""It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95
percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year," says Barack Obama.

The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in
2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the
time - the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office - and
voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's
support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in
2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67
percent (2001)."

95% of the time in 07 he voted with Bush
90% with the GOP in 06 - as if the GOP ever really was anything but a rubber
stamp for Bush

That's your maverick for you.

Paul

"Pan" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:28:49 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>"We" get nothing for it. The oil belongs to the lease holders of the
>>fields. This is something very few people can comprehend. "We" do not
>>own
>>the oil, "they" do.
>>
>>Paul
>>
> That right Paul. The oil companies, don't pay for the leases, they
> don't pay a severance tax. They don't pay three to four times more
> taxes then they make in profit. Then the profits are sent to the
> investors (stock holders). You may have some those stocks in your
> retirement portfolio.

They pay a miserable pittance for the leases. They are using their massive
profits to buy back their stocks. "We' don't get much out of the deal. may
states do not impose a severance tax on oil companies. Exxon is busy waging
legal war to get refunds in the states that do. California imposes no
severance tax on Exxon for example. Republican oil company shills, also
known as senators, work daily to repeal those taxes.

Paul

Pan > fnord news:um8bc4pmodvir7g1mp4iur391ft8rltkbk@
4ax.com:

> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:50:23 -0700, sf wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:27:02 -0700, Pan > wrote:
>>
>>>And what was the unemployment percentage until the last year.
>>>And what is the historical comparison. And also consider if we got
rid
>>>of the 5% of the workforce that is illegal aliens ( which is up
>>>tremendously since 2000) , what our unemployment rate would be?
>>
>>Our native unemployed will not do what they do. If they did, there
>>would be no jobs for immigrants to fill and there's the logical end of
>>the illegal immigration problem.
>
> SF didn't you read the story in the paper. After the raid at the
> kosher meat house, there was a line around the block, of Americans,
> looking for jobs.
>
> And there is no job classification, nor profession, that illegal
> aliens hold a majority.
>

Americans are generally not willing to work for the wages illegals make.

Just saying. If illegals were not willing to work for less, everything
would be more expensive. Why the hell do you think many companies
outsource?

--
Saerah

"Welcome to Usenet, Biatch! Adapt or haul ass!"
- some hillbilly from FL

Gloria P wrote:

> blake murphy wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 04:50:37 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> >
> >> Paul wrote:
> >>
> >>> They have proposed releasing oil from the Strategtic Reserve, shot
down by
> >>> the republicans.
> >> Much as I despise GWB and think he's an idiot and a tool, I have to
agree
> >> with him on this one. The Strategic Reserve exists to deal with a
critical
> >> shortage of oil, not as a mechanism for lowering oil prices.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> > i think you're right about this. the oil should be left there for
> > something *really* catastrophic, not political diddling.
> >
> > blake
>
>
> Do you think it's possible that we'll still have our "strategic oil"
> supply when the rest of the world has run out of oil and has invented a
> new energy source (which we WON'T have because we've got those huge oil
> tanks full--what, a month's supply?--so we don't need no stinkin'
> alternative.) We'll have the last oil in the world when no one else is
> using oil because they're onto something better.


Nope...we have TONS of oil and other petro/fossil fuel resources, Gloria...

Canada and the US Rocky Mt.-Northern Plains states alone have GIGANTOR
amounts of oil in the amout of oil shale reserves; these reserves dwarf
Saudi Arabia's...you live in Colorado, surely you know this.

The Los Angeles Basin sits on IIRC the biggest petro deposit in the US...

Heck, the US state of Illannoy ALONE has enough coal reserves to provide ALL
the projected energy needs of the US for the next ___500___ years...and
Illannnoy is only the *third* - largest coal - producing state in the
US....and the technology to cleanly extract this energy will be developed,
just you watch.


> Oil is a finite resource and NOT finding something to replace it is
> what's catastrophic.


Not at all, Gloria...human ingenuity combined with the capitalist *profit*
motive is going to usher in a whole new Golden Age as regards energy
production...and this will translate into a *much* higher standard of living
for all. In a half - century poverty may even be eliminated...

You guys who are doing the Chicken L'il act as regards petro energy are
analagous to the peeps who in the 19th century projected the end of
civilisation by 1900 because all the burnable wood in the would be
exhausted...

The "lights" are *not* going to go out...we are on the threshold of a
splendid new age in human history...I only wish I could be alive to see it.


--
Best
Greg

Pan wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:43:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00 one recent
> >> year. They live in a house that cost over a million dollars.
> >> And you think they are closer to the average "commoner"?????
> >
> >and they worked for their money, unlike mccain, who married it.
> >
> >your pal,
> >blake
>
> Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
> raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
> to get an earmark the next year.
>
> He is the standard Chicago politician.


Yup, he is HACK product of the HACK Illannoy and Cook County/Chicago
political machine...he is from the political machine that promoted and put
into power the likes of Emil Jones, Todd Stroger, Blago, and the Daley
family...

The whole hoo - ha about him reminds me of the buzz surrounding *former*
[COUGH] Illannoy Senator Carol Mosely - Braun who was elected in 1994 as the
first female black US senator. I was *so* enthusiastic, did some
volunteering for her campaign. She BLEW it royally when her tenure was
mired in moronic petty corruption. After she was soundly whomped by
Illannoy voters, President Clintoon "rewarded" her by appointing her
Ambassador to New Zealand, lol...

Obama has fewer leadership chops than Moseley - Braun did - and a *lot* more
negative political baggage, I shudder to think what will befall us if he's
elected POTUS...


--
Best
Greg

"John Kane" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 7, 9:53 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
> > I hate greedy people. But I hate commies even more as NOBODY can get
> > ahead in a fully socialist society.
>
> Tell that to Candada, France, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Australia,
> Norway, Sweden, Finland, Lichtenstein etc etc.

Where did you ever get the idea that these countries are "fully
socialist" societies (what ever that actually is). They all have a
capitalist economy with some social programs, including at least in
Canada and France's case the occasional government owned corporation.
Not sure about the others.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

That was the point. One is a economic system the other is a political
system. All over the world capitalism and socialism co-exist quite
successfully.

Paul

On Sep 8, 11:44 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:
> blake murphy > wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:05:10 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>
> >> Omelet > wrote:
>
> >>> And the guy hitting on you was kinda cute. <eg>
>
> >> He was? I didn't even notice that part. I just remember his
> >> haircut reminded me of Gary Oldman's in the The Fifth Element.
>
> >>http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...26ZorgSmokes-1...
>
> > dear god.
>
> <shrug>
>
> Om thought he was cute, at least. He's an RMT and a hairdresser.
> Like that's surprising. I'm some sort of *** Magnet.
>
> <shrug>
>
> ObFood: I tried the highly touted Popeye's Red Beans and Rice
> concoction tonight (16oz container for a whopping $3.59).
> I wasn't impressed for the money.
>
> -sw

I am thankful that it has been a long while, but I can remember being
in situations, like a road trip with a long stretch of turnpike, where
you'd have to eat what was available. I'd try to hold out for a pope
yes and get the rice and beans, with a pepper or two. I like that
they can get white folks in the malls to eat pickled jalepenos. That
price for a few cents worth of rice and beans is ridiculous, but when
you consider the alternatives . . . And you do get that high quality
styrofoam and a spork.

bulka

"bulka" > wrote
> I am thankful that it has been a long while, but I can remember being
> in situations, like a road trip with a long stretch of turnpike, where
> you'd have to eat what was available. I'd try to hold out for a pope
> yes and get the rice and beans, with a pepper or two. I like that
> they can get white folks in the malls to eat pickled jalepenos.

*cackle*

That
> price for a few cents worth of rice and beans is ridiculous, but when
> you consider the alternatives . . . And you do get that high quality
> styrofoam and a spork.
>

Heaven was when I was rushed, running between sites over a few days' time,
and pulled up at a SC Bojangles to find they served catfish.
Nuggets, you bet. But not enough of the strong, icky part to notice, and you
got a nice-sized portion for maybe $4! Catfish and cole slaw
vs. Big Macs or KFC?

"blake murphy" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 21:18:03 >
> i think she should spend more on botox. in some pictures, her face looks
> almost lifelike.
>
> your pal,
> blake

That goes way beyond Botox. I know what can be done with Botox, and that is
multiple facelifts, probably beginning in her forties. And I don't care one
whit. Ageism is so rampant, who wouldn't if they had the nerve and the
money?

The only giveaway on her face is the chin, which is almost impossible to
fix. Her neck is 30 years younger than her age.

"Cheryl" > ha scritto nel messaggio
. ..
> "cybercat"
>> This is the guy behind the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry, did you know
>> that? Not that this reflects either way on his plan.
>
> No, I didn't. He's just paying a lot for air time lately and I don't see
> anyone else trying to get a movement going for alternate energy sources.
> I'm all for it. Though I keep waiting to see if he's backing some
> surprise candidate that'll be on the ticket out of the blue in Nov. Of
> course they won't win, but with what we have to vote for right now, you
> never know.

What really will work is if the people get active about it. The politicians
will make it a priority if they know the people care. As it is, the
politicians for the most part think the people want an easy cheap out and
don't care much at all about the environment, dwindling resources or waste.
Some posts here look like they ae right in some cases.

bulka > wrote:

> On Sep 8, 11:44 pm, Sqwertz > wrote:

>> ObFood: I tried the highly touted Popeye's Red Beans and Rice
>> concoction tonight (16oz container for a whopping $3.59).
>> I wasn't impressed for the money.
>
> . . . And you do get that high quality styrofoam and a spork.

For some reason they gave me four little black sporks.

-sw

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message
> >
> from John Kane > contains these words:
>
>> On Sep 7, 9:53 am, "Paul M. Cook" > wrote:
>> > > I hate greedy people. But I hate commies even more as NOBODY can get
>> > > ahead in a fully socialist society.
>> >
>> > Tell that to Candada, France, Great Britain, Spain, Germany, Australia,
>> > Norway, Sweden, Finland, Lichtenstein etc etc.
>
>> Where did you ever get the idea that these countries are "fully
>> socialist" societies (what ever that actually is). They all have a
>> capitalist economy with some social programs, including at least in
>> Canada and France's case the occasional government owned corporation.
>> Not sure about the others.
>
> Then how about Russia and China? Both churning out millionnaires nowadays
> .
>
> http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9174-9.cfm

I would not say churning out. They basically have been given special
permission to get rich. They are usually very well connected people
politically. It is by no means without the help of the governments either.

Paul

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:44:38 -0700 (PDT), John Kane wrote:

> On Sep 7, 10:52*am, Omelet > wrote:
>> In article > ,
>> *Saerah Gray > wrote:
>>
>>> Omelet > fnord
>>>news
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> > I don't give a damn about the rest of the world. (sorry).
>>> > We are capable of solving our own energy issues if people would get
>>> > off their asses and quit being quite so greedy!
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>> > Center ground.
>>
>>> These two statements are contradictory.
>>
>> Not when I was referring to the specific energy needs of the US.
>>
>> My point was that we are capable of supplying our OWN energy needs.
>> We do NOT need imported oil! *I have no issues if we export the excess,
>> but we need to be a bit more self-sufficient.
>
> At the moment the USA imports about 58% of its oil. It's been years
> since the USA was self-sufficient in oil products. Drilling in
> Alaska, etc, is unlikely to make an significant difference.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

try telling om and the republicans that. it interferes with the 'drill,
drill, drill' and 'democrats are causing high gas prices' bedtime stories.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:01:46 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:

> "Pan" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:25:55 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>>>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>>>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>>>
>>>No it was in one of his own commercials. It is not rhetoric at all it is
>>>his
>>>voting record. You're quoting a falsehood, not me.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>>> :-)
>>>
>> give me a url please.
>
> Plemty out ther to Google. Here is a quote from a cite referring to
> Congressional Quarterly
>
> ""It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95
> percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year," says Barack Obama.
>
> The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in
> 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the
> time - the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office - and
> voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's
> support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in
> 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67
> percent (2001)."
>
> 95% of the time in 07 he voted with Bush
> 90% with the GOP in 06 - as if the GOP ever really was anything but a rubber
> stamp for Bush
>
> That's your maverick for you.
>
> Paul

but the other five percent of the time he made funny faces and stuck his
tongue out at bush. maverickin' we can believe in!

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 15:21:25 -0700, Pan wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:43:41 GMT, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Letsee... Michelle O'bama made something like $400,000.00 one recent
>>> year. They live in a house that cost over a million dollars.
>>> And you think they are closer to the average "commoner"?????
>>
>>and they worked for their money, unlike mccain, who married it.
>>
>>your pal,
>>blake
>
> Yes Michelle worked for her money. And she got a promotion and a 160%
> raise, when Obama, became a U.S. senator. And her company just happen
> to get an earmark the next year.
>
> He is the standard Chicago politician.

and cindy had a rich father. worked her ass off for that.

blake

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 19:13:05 -0400, cybercat wrote:

> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "enigma" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> Omelet > wrote in
>>> news >>>
>>>> The problem is, we need relief now. It will take time to
>>>> develop other resources.
>>>
>>> what we need is someone with an alternate energy vision akin
>>> to JFK's space race vision. developing technology doesn't
>>> occur in a vacuum, it needs funding. and yes, funding means
>>> taxes.
>>> look at all the things that came out of the space race
>>> though... it was money well spent.
>>>
>> http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/
>
> This is the guy behind the Swiftboat campaign against Kerry, did you know
> that? Not that this reflects either way on his plan.

maybe he's feeling buyer's remorse.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:01:46 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
wrote:


>>>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>>>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>>>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.


>Plemty out ther to Google. Here is a quote from a cite referring to
>Congressional Quarterly
>
>""It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95
>percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year," says Barack Obama.
>
>The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies, in
>2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the
>time - the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office - and
>voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's
>support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in
>2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67
>percent (2001)."
>
>95% of the time in 07 he voted with Bush
>90% with the GOP in 06 - as if the GOP ever really was anything but a rubber
>stamp for Bush
>
>That's your maverick for you.
>
>Paul
>
O.K. now read my statement again, then take the unanimous vote out.
The unanimous were about half of the votes, so that is about 45% of
the time McCain voted with bush (90% divided by 2=45%) , and 45% of
the time BHO voted with Bush.

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 18:01:46 -0700, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>
>> "Pan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 17:25:55 -0700, "Paul M. Cook" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Paul that is Dem rhetoric. With out unanimous votes, ect, he agrees
>>>>> with Bush about 45% of the time. Or the same amount of time as Obama
>>>>> if you count the number of time he voted within the unanimous vote.
>>>>
>>>>No it was in one of his own commercials. It is not rhetoric at all it is
>>>>his
>>>>voting record. You're quoting a falsehood, not me.
>>>>
>>>>Paul
>>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>> give me a url please.
>>
>> Plemty out ther to Google. Here is a quote from a cite referring to
>> Congressional Quarterly
>>
>> ""It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95
>> percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year," says Barack
>> Obama.
>>
>> The claim is true. According to Congressional Quarterly's Voting Studies,
>> in
>> 2007 McCain voted in line with the president's position 95 percent of the
>> time - the highest percentage rate for McCain since Bush took office -
>> and
>> voted in line with his party 90 percent of the time. However, McCain's
>> support of President Bush's position has been as low as 77 percent (in
>> 2005), and his support for his party's position has been as low as 67
>> percent (2001)."
>>
>> 95% of the time in 07 he voted with Bush
>> 90% with the GOP in 06 - as if the GOP ever really was anything but a
>> rubber
>> stamp for Bush
>>
>> That's your maverick for you.
>>
>> Paul
>
> but the other five percent of the time he made funny faces and stuck his
> tongue out at bush. maverickin' we can believe in!

He's so maverick he has abstained from critical votes this year. He's
afraid to be nailed down on anything. Critical troop funding bills and he
abstained? He's a piece of work.