|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
28 Sep 2007 10:29:05 AM |
|
|
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
29 Sep 2007 01:10:18 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution many
years ago.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to raise
THEIR taxes.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
29 Sep 2007 01:26:00 PM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the
LAW, not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
You are absolutely right, except for one part...Law Enforcement enforces the
law.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution many
years ago.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to raise
THEIR taxes.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
29 Sep 2007 07:24:18 PM |
|
|
In article <QeOdnTxdoNxfBWPbnZ2dnUVZ_qelnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the
LAW, not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
You are absolutely right, except for one part...Law Enforcement enforces the
law.
LOL!!
Typical Osprey.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
29 Sep 2007 05:59:32 PM |
|
|
On Sep 29, 1:26 pm, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote in message
news:46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patr...@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the
LAW, not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
You are absolutely right, except for one part...Law Enforcement enforces the
law.
What's the exception?
All you are is a pencil-pushing prison clerk.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
29 Sep 2007 07:24:17 PM |
|
|
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
So you are an idiot.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some responsibility.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
01 Oct 2007 12:14:21 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some responsibility.
Cite?
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor wouldn't it?
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many years
ago.
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many years ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
01 Oct 2007 08:59:38 PM |
|
|
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either. After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor wouldn't it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many years ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
02 Oct 2007 12:27:48 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem, it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my state.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes; http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried. However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 12:03:47 AM |
|
|
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem, it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my state.
But then, I never said that.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and
with the Indian Tribes; http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
*****.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
Yeah - see ³*****.²
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
Why do I care? It is your issue.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried.
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
So burglary is good, by your example, above.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
Iım sure not. Being stupid seems to be an expertise of yours.
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
Go for it.
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
See? Stupidity
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 09:55:03 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:021020072203474507%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children
to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with
regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
There's no evidence that Bush used cocaine. There's no evidence that his
daugfhters used cocaine. Maybe you have him and them confused with JEB
Bush's daughter?
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem, it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my state.
But then, I never said that.
So, when you said, "it sounds like a problem" you meant what, exactly?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we
do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal
money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for protecting
people.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have
some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of
responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our
Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some
responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and
with the Indian Tribes; http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
*****.
You apparently have nothing to offer.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
Yeah - see ³*****.²
Still nothing to offer.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we
can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the
war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just
borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live
for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I
find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible, hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
Why do I care? It is your issue.
Only in your mind.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need
to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children
while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor
wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried.
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything.
Feel free to explain how protecting myself or my stuff represents fear?
However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
So burglary is good, by your example, above.
I guess that depends on your perspective.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
Iım sure not. Being stupid seems to be an expertise of yours.
That's the best you can do?
Has it occurred to you that if all you got is me making an infrequent
typographical error then you really have nothing of any significance at all?
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many
years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
Go for it.
Hitlary "We're going... to take away money from people..."
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
See? StupidityS
Hahahahhahahaah!!!
So, in this entire post you had NOTHING.
You should be asking yourself how you can have personal opinions based on
NOTHING.
Self-examination is vital to personal growth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 10:20:32 AM |
|
|
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:4703ad43$0$19581$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:021020072203474507%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children
to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with
regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
There's no evidence that Bush used cocaine. There's no evidence that his
daugfhters used cocaine. Maybe you have him and them confused with JEB
Bush's daughter?
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem, it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my state.
But then, I never said that.
So, when you said, "it sounds like a problem" you meant what, exactly?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we
do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement
protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal
money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for
protecting people.
This is just more reason as to why nobody believed him when he said he was
in law enforcement.
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have
some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of
responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare
of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our
Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some
responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and
with the Indian Tribes; http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
*****.
You apparently have nothing to offer.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
Yeah - see ³*****.²
Still nothing to offer.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we
can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the
war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just
borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live
for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I
find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible,
hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination
of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
Why do I care? It is your issue.
Only in your mind.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need
to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children
while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor
wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried.
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything.
Feel free to explain how protecting myself or my stuff represents fear?
He must be afraid since he has said in the past he owns guns.
However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
So burglary is good, by your example, above.
I guess that depends on your perspective.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
Iım sure not. Being stupid seems to be an expertise of yours.
That's the best you can do?
Has it occurred to you that if all you got is me making an infrequent
typographical error then you really have nothing of any significance at
all?
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many
years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
Go for it.
Hitlary "We're going... to take away money from people..."
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
See? StupidityS
Hahahahhahahaah!!!
So, in this entire post you had NOTHING.
You should be asking yourself how you can have personal opinions based on
NOTHING.
Self-examination is vital to personal growth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patriot Games" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
04 Oct 2007 10:21:02 AM |
|
|
"Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:I86dnR90ENXdLp7anZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:4703ad43$0$19581$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:021020072203474507%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for
protecting people.
This is just more reason as to why nobody believed him when he said he was
in law enforcement.
Perhaps he meant as a result of law enforcement is was in prison?
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything.
Feel free to explain how protecting myself or my stuff represents fear?
He must be afraid since he has said in the past he owns guns.
He was projecting his fear on me? Could well be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 08:04:03 PM |
|
|
In article <I86dnR90ENXdLp7anZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:4703ad43$0$19581$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:021020072203474507%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million children
to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with
regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
There's no evidence that Bush used cocaine. There's no evidence that his
daugfhters used cocaine. Maybe you have him and them confused with JEB
Bush's daughter?
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem, it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my state.
But then, I never said that.
So, when you said, "it sounds like a problem" you meant what, exactly?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that we
do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc., either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement
protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal
money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for
protecting people.
This is just more reason as to why nobody believed him when he said he was
in law enforcement.
Osprey proves he has no knowledge of law enforcement. Law enforcement
officers are responsible for protecting people, Osprey. Didnıt they
teach you that at Wilmington ³College?²
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not have
some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of
responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the welfare
of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our
Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some
responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
and
with the Indian Tribes; http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
*****.
You apparently have nothing to offer.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
Yeah - see ³*****.²
Still nothing to offer.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides, we
can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with the
war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just
borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future! Live
for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit I
find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible,
hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some combination
of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
Why do I care? It is your issue.
Only in your mind.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY need
to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children
while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor
wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried.
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything.
Feel free to explain how protecting myself or my stuff represents fear?
He must be afraid since he has said in the past he owns guns.
As a police office. When I quit, I sold my weapons (to another police
officer.)
However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
So burglary is good, by your example, above.
I guess that depends on your perspective.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
Iım sure not. Being stupid seems to be an expertise of yours.
That's the best you can do?
Has it occurred to you that if all you got is me making an infrequent
typographical error then you really have nothing of any significance at
all?
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many
years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are ³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
Go for it.
Hitlary "We're going... to take away money from people..."
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
See? StupidityS
Hahahahhahahaah!!!
So, in this entire post you had NOTHING.
You should be asking yourself how you can have personal opinions based on
NOTHING.
Self-examination is vital to personal growth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 08:08:00 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:031020071804031855%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <I86dnR90ENXdLp7anZ2dnUVZ_sSlnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Patriot Games" <Patriot@America.com> wrote in message
news:4703ad43$0$19581$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:021020072203474507%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47027f95$0$20595$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:011020071859388729%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <47012ae6$0$11053$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:290920071724177285%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fe950d$0$28838$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:280920070829056022%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <46fd1909$0$32472$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Patriot
Games
<Patriot@America.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:270920071932011912%davbarnes@gmail.com...
Congress approved legislation today adding 4 million
children
to
a
popular health care program. Bush says he will veto it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21020771/
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack
on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with
them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with
regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal
problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
There's no evidence that Bush used cocaine. There's no evidence that
his
daugfhters used cocaine. Maybe you have him and them confused with JEB
Bush's daughter?
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem,
it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my
state.
But then, I never said that.
So, when you said, "it sounds like a problem" you meant what, exactly?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that
we
do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc.,
either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so
protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement
protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not
people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal
money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that
way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for
protecting people.
This is just more reason as to why nobody believed him when he said he
was
in law enforcement.
Osprey proves he has no knowledge of law enforcement. Law enforcement
officers are responsible for protecting people, Osprey. Didnıt they
teach you that at Wilmington ³College?²
No they are not *****. They are not responsible for protecting people.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/11/11-17-03tdc/11-17-03dops-letter-04.asp
Bowers v. DeVito, where the 7th Circuit Court stated, "There is no
constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by
criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its
residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of
the Constitution."
Those parents live in States. The States may or may not
have
some
responsibility.
If you believe the state government has some kind of
responsibility
or,
more importantly for this discussion, interest, in the
welfare
of
children, the same logic applies to the federal government.
No, it doesn't because we addressed that issue with our
Constitution
many
years ago.
Yeah - when we gave the congress the power to take some
responsibility.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States,
and
with the Indian Tribes;
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
"Regulating commerce" has nothing to do with this issue.
*****.
You apparently have nothing to offer.
Any responsibility the State thinks it has for children is a
responsibility
the State CREATED FOR ITSELF.
Congress has authority, also.
Cite?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution
See above.
Yeah - see ³*****.²
Still nothing to offer.
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Like the states.
Its just another Socialist Democrat scheme to raise taxes.
More simple minded thinking from the simple minded. Besides,
we
can
always do what the irresponsible Republicans have done with
the
war
and
big business - spend tons of money on our children and just
borrow
it
so taxes remain the same, right? To hell with the future!
Live
for
today and let the children pay for it tomorrow!
Iıd like to believe todayıs Republicans simply have different
ideological differences with the Democrats, but I must admit
I
find
Republicans are merely stupid, simple minded, irresponsible,
hate
filled, religious fanatics - or, more likely, some
combination
of
these.
Oh, please stop, I'm getting all misty.....
No you are not. You getting all greedy.
It has nothng to do with greed.
*****.
Then prove it.
Why do I care? It is your issue.
Only in your mind.
If the States can't afford to handle THEIR problem then THEY
need
to
raise
THEIR taxes.
That way, the children of rich states can have healthy children
while
the children of poor states can have sick children.
That would certainly be an incentive for States to NOT be poor
wouldn't
it?
LOL!!!! So if I burglarize your house it is a good thing because it
is
an incentive for you to protect your house.
You would be dead if you tried.
I see. A tough guy with a gun. What are you so afraid of?
I'm not afraid of anything.
Feel free to explain how protecting myself or my stuff represents fear?
He must be afraid since he has said in the past he owns guns.
As a police office.
You were an office???
When I quit, I sold my weapons (to another police
officer.)
You sold issued weapons to another person???
You can be locked up for that. You just admitted to a crime. Police
officers are issued their weapons, idiot.
And you did admit you own a gun. So I guess by your own theory, you're
afraid.
However, since burglars do exist and since
house burglaries do occur that IS an incentive for people to protect
themselves and their possessions.
So burglary is good, by your example, above.
I guess that depends on your perspective.
I bet the great state of Michigan would have cleaned up Detroit
many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illionis would have cleaned up Chicago
many
years
ago.
I bet the great state of Illinois doesnıt appreciate ignorant
assholes
calling it ³Illionis.²
I care?
Iım sure not. Being stupid seems to be an expertise of yours.
That's the best you can do?
Has it occurred to you that if all you got is me making an infrequent
typographical error then you really have nothing of any significance at
all?
I bet the great state of California would have cleaned up LA many
years
ago.
Its NOT a Federal problem and MY money should NOT be going to
feed
some
scratch-rat in Oregon.
Another greedy ***** for the Republican Party.
Another Socialist ***** for the Democrat Party.
Of course. You idiots on the Right always claim we are
³socialists.²
And we can prove it.
Go for it.
Hitlary "We're going... to take away money from people..."
It is like when blacks always claim it is ³racism.²
But we can prove they're black.....
See? StupidityS
Hahahahhahahaah!!!
So, in this entire post you had NOTHING.
You should be asking yourself how you can have personal opinions based
on
NOTHING.
Self-examination is vital to personal growth...
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush Continues War On Childen |
03 Oct 2007 09:04:59 PM |
|
|
You have to give it to the Republicans - The second attack
on
children
in as many weeks.
Bush has two children and he's not having a problem with
them.
Really? They are drug users and they have done nothing with
regard
to
supporting this war that GW is so enamored with.
So?
So, it sounds like a ³problem.²
Doesn't sound like my problem. Doesn't sound like a Federal
problem.
Doesn't sound like a problem in my state.
Thatıs right. Move the goal posts. You said ³heıs² not having a
problem with them. Dishonest, arenıt you?
I'm not aware that he is having a problem with them.
Are you saying Bush finds it acceptable for his daughters to use
illegal drugs? (Since he has used cocaine, I guess that could be
true.)
There's no evidence that Bush used cocaine. There's no evidence that
his
daugfhters used cocaine. Maybe you have him and them confused with JEB
Bush's daughter?
Even IF he was having a problem with them it wouldn't be my problem,
it
wouldn't be a Federal problem, and it wouldn't be a problem in my
state.
But then, I never said that.
So, when you said, "it sounds like a problem" you meant what, exactly?
The Federal gov't has ZERO children.
Irrelevant.
Parents have children. The children are their parent's
responsibility.
Simple minded thinking from the simple minded. I guess that
we
do
not
need law enforcement, fire departments, military, etc.,
either.
After
all, it is your property, your life, your liberty, so
protecting
those
things are your responsibility.
You're correct. It is my responsibility. Law enforcement
protects
the
LAW,
not people. The military protects the Constitution, not
people.
My local fire department is 100% locally funded, zero Federal
money.
So you are an idiot.
Perhaps you should learn how things work and why they work that
way
before
you start popping off like an imbecile in public?
I understand how they work, but you apparently do not.
You can begin demonstrating that any time....
Sure - what would you like to know?
Share with us how you thought law enforcement was responsible for
protecting people.
This is just more reason as to why nobody believed him when he said he
was
in law enforcement.
Osprey proves he has no knowledge of law enforcement. Law enforcement
officers are responsible for protecting people, Osprey. Didnıt they
teach you that at Wilmington ³College?²
No they are not *****. They are not responsible for protecting people.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/11/11-17-03tdc/11-17-03dops-letter-04.asp
Bowers v. DeVito, where the 7th Circuit Court stated, "There is no
constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by
criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its
residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of
the Constitution."
LOL! Well this pretty much tells us where Osprey gets his legal
knowledge. A history ³junior² at Penn State in an OPINION piece.
Maybe he was thinking of Danny DeVito? And where is your CITATION?
Remember - citations are | | | | | | | | | | | | |
