This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislatu

"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in
a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html


I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the victim of a
political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.



..
..

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislatu

"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in
bribes in
a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and
antiques."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html


I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the
victim of a
political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk
response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.



I'll trade you a Cunningham and a DeLay for a Trafficante and a Jefferson

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislatu

"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in
bribes in
a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and
antiques."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html


I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the
victim of a
political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk
response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.



You won't find me defending criminals, George, but this sort of pales in
comparison to things like the House Banking scandal or any of a host of
other government related **** ups. Let's not forget that Gray Davis is gone
becuase of how corrupt he was.

The Bug Eater ****s himself right on cue.

Also, I expect a kneejerk response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.

Let's not forget that Gray Davis is gone becuase of how corrupt he was.

Here's your bug, Mikey. You're an obedient entomophage.

wrote in message
nk.net...



You won't find me defending criminals, George, but this sort of pales in
comparison to things like the House Banking scandal or any of a host of
other government related **** ups. Let's not forget that Gray Davis is
gone becuase of how corrupt he was.


and/or inept.

George Middius wrote:
This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislatu

"SAN DIEGO, California (AP) -- Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham pleaded guilty
Monday to conspiracy and tax charges, admitting taking $2.4 million in bribes in
a case that grew from an investigation into the sale of his home to a
wide-ranging conspiracy involving payments in cash, vacations and antiques."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/....ap/index.html


I'm sure we'll from Scottie Terrierborg that poor Cunningham was the victim of a
political hatchet job by vengeful Democrats. Also, I expect a kneejerk response
from duh-Mikey whining about Gray Davis and Bill Clinton.

No, you won't. I'd like to see him crucified right after he testifies
against the corrupt contractors. 10 years isn't near enough and he
won't get that.

BTW, he's not my rep.... his district is full of the extremely
rich.... money apparently doesn't make people smart. Look closer
at this mess and you might begin to wonder how a scumbag like
Cunningham can get such a lock on a district. Between campaign
financing BS and gerrymandering.... we have no democracy nor
representation. Just a bunch of greedy power hungry lying *******s on
both sides of the aisle. Duke got stupid greedy as wanted to be as
rich as some of his constituents he had to smooze.


Check this joke of a reform out

http://tinyurl.com/bh9tj

and it supposedly going to be the "strongest law in the nation".

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?
The more money in a campaign the less free speech. The wealthy special
interest candidate can drown everyone else out screaming louder and
longer in media domination leaving the average voter with a headache
and only one message ringing in their hollow heads.
How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?

ScottW

George Middius wrote:
This is what happens when Republicans take over the legislatu


This is what happens when democrats take over city hall.

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...ter-fraud.html


Here's a nice little timeline showing the rampant corruption in both
parties.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/ga/co...s&act=timeline


ScottW

Scottw said:

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.


..
..
..

George Middius wrote:
Scottw said:

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.



So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?

ScottW

The fleas are bitin' today.

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.

So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?

That revelation must have rocked your world, Scooter. You asked, and I answered.
What? You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to blame the other party
for the problem? Wow. I'm impressed with your rhetorical acumen and ironclad
principles. You deserve a medal -- a "debating trade" medal. How would that suit
you? ;-)



..
..

George Middius wrote:
The fleas are bitin' today.

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.

So point me to democratically sponsored legislation to fix it. Or
is the do-nothing but bitch party to happy bitching to do anything?

That revelation must have rocked your world, Scooter. You asked, and I answered.

I even accepted your answer without proof and gave you perfect
opportunity to show a superior democratic position on the issue.... yet
all you can do is whine about republicans in typical do-nothing but
bitch fashion.

What? You didn't like the answer, so now you're trying to blame the other party
for the problem?

I seek solutions. The history of campaing finance is too tangled and
sordid to get stuck on the stupidity of who's at fault.

Wow. I'm impressed with your rhetorical acumen and ironclad
principles. You deserve a medal -- a "debating trade" medal. How would that suit
you? ;-)

Bottom line... you can't show me the dems will fix the problem....
you, like your party, do nothing but bitch about republicans but offer
nothing of a legislative agenda to show us how you would do better.
What a waste. I hate democrats for offering nothing to America in the
way of an agenda.... you useless whiny ****s couldn't unseat an idiot
like bush who felt so unthreatened he could abondon his conservative
base, support immigration amnesty, and still win.

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
there is no difference
between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
filter.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
little attention, immigration, energy.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
secularism is also a point of view not universally held.

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.

ScottW

In , Schizoid Man wrote :

ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

Absolutly true.
If Middius' lobby and similars haven't put so much pressure on the democrat
candidat he would have been elected in place of this ******* of G.W. Bush.


I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

Don't be so pessimistic.

--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

..
How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?


By following Hillary's footprints.

"George Middius" wrote in message
...


Scottw said:

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.



yes, you can have as much free speech as you can afford!

Clyde Slick said:

How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?

By following Hillary's footprints.

Sir Edmund Hillary?

Clyde Slick said:

Who's the friggin idiots that equate money donation with free speech?

That would be the Republican party. Thanks for asking.

yes, you can have as much free speech as you can afford!

Scooter can't talk now because he's busy fulminating.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?

By following Hillary's footprints.

Sir Edmund Hillary?


I meant the frigid bitch not the frozen *******.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans on
99% of the issues.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

If you think a bit more, you'll resalize that it was around 1980 when the
Democrats got 50% of the vote in a presidential election, yet they want us
to believe they are the mainstream.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.

No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
there is no difference
between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
filter.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
little attention, immigration, energy.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
secularism is also a point of view not universally held.

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.

The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

How else do you think a dumbass like Arnold can become governor with
virtually no political track record?

By following Hillary's footprints.

Sir Edmund Hillary?


I meant the frigid bitch not the frozen *******.

I understand she once claimed that she was named after Sir Edmund, evn
though he had not become a household name when she was hatched.

duh-Mikey needs to be hurted again.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.

No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

Mickey, this kind of nonsense is a prime example of why everybody calls
you an idiot. Or maybe everybody except Arnii Krooger, who is so much
smarter than the rest of us and never, ever causes trouble on Usenet. ;-)

wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For me
personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the Right.


No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

Oh yeah, I forgot your school of science is the one that rejects
empirical evidence.

wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.


The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

True. One of the reasons that the United States is not (yet) going down
the road of social and economic meltdown like Germany or France. There
is a large, young, working population whose tax contributions are enough
to keep social services sustainable.

That being said, I honestly could not give a toss whether a man wants to
marry another, or whether Darwin's book contributes one sentence in the
Bible.

How about a debate on energy, trade and the economy? Personally, I'd
forget about the war on terror. I think I've heard the words 'freedom',
'democracy' and 'victory' mentioned enough for several lifespans.

wrote:
"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com...

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Just look at the hypocrisy of the democratic party... while the hard
left of the party screams for immediate withdrawal, the obvious leading
presidential candidate, Hilary, supports more troops, not less. What
a mess of a party. And theres that idiot Reid trying to explain why
he voted to give the president authority for war... he only did it IF
there was proof of WMDs and IF there was a proven threat.. What an
idiot... IF thats what he thought he was voting on... he never should
have voted yes the moron. His argument amounts to a Kerry repeat of
he voted for it before he was against it. Idiot.

I'll be succint. Regardless of all my anti-Republican tirades, I do not
honestly believe that the Dems will be any better than the Republicans
on 99% of the issues.

I agree. Then one must ask.. Why? and I can only conclude that
there is no difference
between the candidates as they are all funded and in a sense created by
the same special interest monies with the same agenda. Occasionally a
guy like Tancredo actually steps forward and tries to represent
something. My own rep, Issa, complained about Tancredo's support for
Gilchrist in Orange County. I sent him a e-mail telling him I thought
Tancredo deserved his support. He actually replied that Tancredo was
muddying the waters and going outside the approved ways of doing things
in Congress and making it difficult for representatives to get along,
basically explaining that he was mucking up the you pass my pork and
I'll pass yours way that Congress works. It was most disheartening and
my reply to his mail... bounced. Have to go back through the web
filter.

If you really think about it, the last presidential election was not
decided on 'hard' issues like military or economic policies. It was
decided on 'soft' issues like abortion and evolution.

There was the "war on terror" filling the military aspect but the rest
of the important agenda that Americans should be interested in got
little attention, immigration, energy.

I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still
consider Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be
blasphemous. For me personally, there does lie the distinction between
the Left and the Right.

it's a big "who gives a ****" distinction to me..... still interesting
that listening to my local left radio this morning they espoused an
extreme secular point of view denigrating all religions as forcing
their point of view on others while failing to note that supporting
secularism is also a point of view not universally held.

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.

The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.

Depends when you factor out the immigrants but in general...we'd be
slightly increasing to flat.

Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
encourages in the US.

ScottW

Schizoid Man wrote:
wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

Frankly, I'd like a real national debate on immigration, population
growth, deficit spending (and its need for economic/population growth
to sustain). It's mind boggling to me that many non-minority
liberals who support open borders also support kyoto without realizing
that open borders fuels this nations growth and CO2 output. Of course
halting that suicidal trend would create decades of flat to
recessionary economies.... but I've decided its our only hope. Else
by 2100 the US will be billion people and facing the need for Chinese
style population growth measures. As it is we control our destiny
much as an ant colony, at the will of nature.


The last I heard the only reason population is growing in the U.S is because
of immigration. If you factor the immigrants out, we'd be depopulating.
Perhaps the birth rate has changed?

True. One of the reasons that the United States is not (yet) going down
the road of social and economic meltdown like Germany or France. There
is a large, young, working population whose tax contributions are enough
to keep social services sustainable.

Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
million or more added to the mix?

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

Perhaps the birth rate has changed?


Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
encourages in the US.

Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
in the States.

ScottW wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
million or more added to the mix?

On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to Tookie?

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
million or more added to the mix?

On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to Tookie?

Same thing that happenned to his victims.

ScottW

Schizoid Man wrote:
ScottW wrote:
wrote:

"ScottW" wrote in message

Perhaps the birth rate has changed?


Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
encourages in the US.

Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
in the States.

and your families managed to immigrate here legally I presume.

ScottW

ScottW wrote:
Schizoid Man wrote:

ScottW wrote:

wrote:


"ScottW" wrote in message

Perhaps the birth rate has changed?


Sure.. its declining. Problem is it take 2 to 3 generations for
immigrants to figure out they can't afford the families their heritage
encourages in the US.

Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and
our finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here
in the States.


and your families managed to immigrate here legally I presume.

Completely legal.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...


. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
mentioned enough for several lifespans.

I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...


Being of Indian origin, I can tell you that our families are small and our
finances are self-sufficient. We are a very properous community here in
the States.

and so, all over the world. your diaspora is even more than we Jews.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
ScottW wrote:

Schizoid Man wrote:

Yet the meltdown is inevitable. Do you want to endure it now with a
population of ~280 million or wait 50 years and try to handle it with a
population of over 400 million?.... or keep the immigration coming even
then so we can afford the social service needs of another couple of
indebted generations and have the meltown in 2100 with another 200
million or more added to the mix?

On a completely different issue, what do you think should happen to
Tookie?

Let the Bloods handle him.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
I am appalled that so many members of the Republican party still consider
Darwin to be a heretic, or The Origin of Species to be blasphemous. For
me personally, there does lie the distinction between the Left and the
Right.


No wierder than thinking we can tax our way into prospertity.

Oh yeah, I forgot your school of science is the one that rejects empirical
evidence.

The only rejection that is really at work here is Scott's wife's rejection
of him. She's probably discovered that size *does* matter....

Cheers,

Margaret

Clyde Slick said:

. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
mentioned enough for several lifespans.

I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

When they're mouthed by a twerp like Dubya and his evil cohort, they lose
all meaning.

Clyde Slick wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
mentioned enough for several lifespans.

I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

Admirable ideals, no doubt. However, how exactly would you define 'total
victory' in Iraq?

There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
vanquish to be totally victorious?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
. I think I've heard the words 'freedom', 'democracy' and 'victory'
mentioned enough for several lifespans.

I am not surprised that you find those concepts absolutely abhorrant.

Admirable ideals, no doubt. However, how exactly would you define 'total
victory' in Iraq?

There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
vanquish to be totally victorious?


Same as total victory against:
SLA
Red Brigade
Bader-Meinhof Gang
Black Panthers

That is, when they become to weak, disorganized,
and dispirited to reamin a viable threat.

Clyde Slick wrote:

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message

There doesn't seem to be a clear enemy so exactly who are you going
vanquish to be totally victorious?

Same as total victory against:
SLA
Red Brigade
Bader-Meinhof Gang
Black Panthers

That is, when they become to weak, disorganized,
and dispirited to reamin a viable threat.

Tell me you didn't just compare the Islamic extremism to the 50-member SLA?

Isn't that sort of an apples and oranges comparison?

Or more like Mount Everest to a small molehill?