Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.

Once that happens, and their wives come down with breast cancer, and they
have no insurance to pay for it, since they lost the jobs that used to pay
for their health insurance and prescription drugs, many of which aren't
covered by insurance anyway, and they can't get them cheaper from Canada
without risking arrest, and since they've got one or two or more teenagers
approaching college age and haven't put away enough money over the years to
pay the soaring college tuitions, their kids won't be able to attend the
colleges of their choice, and then there's the mortgage/rent problem - with
soaring home costs and soaring rents, where are they going to move, since
they can't afford any more to stay where they are?

When all this happens to them, perhaps they'll all grow brains, quit
brainwashing themselves with Faux News and Clearchannel Radio, and look at
their pocketbooks. Maybe it will gradually dawn on them that the Bush
policies are responsible for where they have fallen.

Some people have to hit rock bottom before waking up and clinging back to
life.

For their sake, I hope it happens to them. They'll be much better off in
the future as a result. Problem is: since it hasn't affected them
personally yet, they don't believe it really exists for millions of other
citizens out there, who were once just like them.

Sad.

Sandman wrote:

When all this happens to them, perhaps they'll all grow brains, quit
brainwashing themselves with Faux News and Clearchannel Radio, and look at
their pocketbooks. Maybe it will gradually dawn on them that the Bush
policies are responsible for where they have fallen.

And right here is where you ALMOST had it right.

The sad truth is that our country had de-evolved into a semi-feudalism.
Those in power are wealthy and care not about the troubles of the
unwashed masses.

Party affiliation is merely a smokescreen. They throw up "issues"
in front of us to divide us and divert our attention. Race, religion,
sex, welfare, abortion, guns... It's all a smokescreen to cover up
their real agenda, the fleecing of us and the gathering of power.

Clinton, Bush, Kerry... Makes no difference. Elitist rich
powermongers who would sell their own mothers out if it would
get them re-elected.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.

Once that happens, and their wives come down with breast cancer, and they
have no insurance to pay for it, since they lost the jobs that used to pay
for their health insurance and prescription drugs, many of which aren't
covered by insurance anyway, and they can't get them cheaper from Canada
without risking arrest, and since they've got one or two or more teenagers
approaching college age and haven't put away enough money over the years
to
pay the soaring college tuitions, their kids won't be able to attend the
colleges of their choice, and then there's the mortgage/rent problem -
with
soaring home costs and soaring rents, where are they going to move, since
they can't afford any more to stay where they are?


Amazing!!
All these problems just popped up in the past three years!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: "Sandman"

Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.

Nor are they likely ot yet. Unemployment is the same as it was during the
Clinton administration, when you weren't bitching about it. Better still the
job market will likely improve.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: "Sandman"

Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.

Nor are they likely ot yet. Unemployment is the same as it was during the
Clinton administration, when you weren't bitching about it. Better still
the
job market will likely improve.

Bull****. When you count the number of those *no longer seeking work* but
still unemployed after being laid off, the *TRUE* current unemployment rate
is about 7.6%.

The unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was half of that
figure.

You're pathetic.

George M. Middius wrote:


Joseph Oberlander said:


Clinton, Bush, Kerry... Makes no difference. Elitist rich
powermongers who would sell their own mothers out if it would
get them re-elected.


And the winner of the RAO Rant-of-the-Week award goes to.....

It would be amusing if it weren't the truth.

Mikermckelvy wrote:

From: "Sandman"


Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.


Nor are they likely ot yet. Unemployment is the same as it was during the
Clinton administration, when you weren't bitching about it. Better still the
job market will likely improve.

"Unemployment" is a made up figure, though. It doesn't consider
millions of people that any same person would call unemployed
or otherwise unable to work.

"Joseph Oberlander" wrote in message
Mikermckelvy wrote:

Nor are they likely ot yet. Unemployment is the same as it was during
the
Clinton administration, when you weren't bitching about it. Better
still the
job market will likely improve.

"Unemployment" is a made up figure, though. It doesn't consider
millions of people that any same person would call unemployed
or otherwise unable to work.


McKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party, Le Pen's National Front or Joerg Haider's Freedom
Party. Except in the case of all these, the rhetoric, though extreme, was
and is devoid of all the religious and emotional sentimentality.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an outright
lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration, legalization of
drugs, the teaching of evolution in schools, abortion, etc.

This is a new world we live in, Obie. And the new world order calls for
'fight fire with fire'.

All I am trying to do is supplicate his rampant xenophobia, ignorance and
hatred with hard facts and objective analysis. Okay, maybe with a slightly
left-of-center bias.

As Plato once said, "To make peace is to prepare for war".

From: "Sandman"

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message
...
From: "Sandman"

Simple answer:

They haven't lost their jobs **YET**.

Nor are they likely ot yet. Unemployment is the same as it was during the
Clinton administration, when you weren't bitching about it. Better still
the
job market will likely improve.

Bull****. When you count the number of those *no longer seeking work* but
still unemployed after being laid off, the *TRUE* current unemployment rate
is about 7.6%.

The fact is if they aren't being counted you can't give a true count.


The unemployment rate during the Clinton administration was half of that
figure.

It was Clinton policies thgat are partly to blame forf the current mess, you
twit.

You're pathetic.


I'm not the one using leftist propaganda sites as gospel.

From: "Schizoid Man"

cKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party,

Ooooh, so sorry, the Nazi thing automatically disqaulifies you.

I'm not a right winger. I'm not a Republican.

Le Pen's National Front or Joerg Haider's Freedom
Party. Except in the case of all these, the rhetoric, though extreme, was
and is devoid of all the religious and emotional sentimentality.

I'm also not religous in any sense.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an outright
lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration,

Oh do tell me how my views differ from the Libertarians.

legalization of
drugs,

I support the complete legalization of all drugs.he teaching of evolution in
schools, abortion, etc.

I am pro-choice, and an atheist so if you think I support creationism, you're a
bigger fool than you know.

All I am trying to do is supplicate his rampant xenophobia, ignorance and
hatred with hard facts and objective analysis. Okay, maybe with a slightly
left-of-center bias.

The most blind to hard facts are the leftists who claim we don't need to seal
our borders and think that the Democrats don't deserve the lions share of blame
for the death OF MILLIONS due to their policies.

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message

From: "Schizoid Man"

cKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party,

Ooooh, so sorry, the Nazi thing automatically disqaulifies you.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an
outright
lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration,

Oh do tell me how my views differ from the Libertarians.

Uh, libertarians are pro-immigration. Unlike you, who has repeatedly (and in
this email) said that you want the borders sealed.

legalization of
drugs,

I support the complete legalization of all drugs.he teaching of evolution
in
schools, abortion, etc.

OK. Granted.

I am pro-choice, and an atheist so if you think I support creationism,
you're a
bigger fool than you know.

Granted again. You're on a roll.


All I am trying to do is supplicate his rampant xenophobia, ignorance and
hatred with hard facts and objective analysis. Okay, maybe with a
slightly
left-of-center bias.

The most blind to hard facts are the leftists who claim we don't need to
seal
our borders and think that the Democrats don't deserve the lions share of
blame
for the death OF MILLIONS due to their policies.

Look, the Dems aren't saints. But I think of a number of places that the
Republicans were instrumental in death and destruction - Vietnam, Cambodia
(a country in Asia) and Chile (a country in South America) for starters.

I don't know how good your reading ability is, but try to read something on
Pol Pot, or the little-known movement called the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps you've
heard of UBL, his Afghani mujahideen was first supported by... oh yes, the
Republican administration of the 1980s.

Oh, and let us not forget Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad. But in the 1980s,
he was the enemy of our enemy so it was okay for us to turn a blind eye to
the fact that he was murdering his own people and pillaging his own
government. But now that we have to flex our military muscle to show the
world an example, it is convenient for us to take the moral high ground.

If you are serious about arguing, then please try to respond to these points
instead of calling me names and writing slurs and abuses.

From: "Schizoid Man"

Mikermckelvy" wrote in message

From: "Schizoid Man"

cKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party,

Ooooh, so sorry, the Nazi thing automatically disqaulifies you.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an
outright
lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration,

Oh do tell me how my views differ from the Libertarians.

Uh, libertarians are pro-immigration.

So am I as long as it's legal. The sealing of borders would help make that
easier.
It also has to with National Security. Open borders allow terrorists to get
here easier.

Unlike you, who has repeatedly (and in
this email) said that you want the borders sealed.

legalization of
drugs,

I support the complete legalization of all drugs.he teaching of evolution
in
schools, abortion, etc.

OK. Granted.

I am pro-choice, and an atheist so if you think I support creationism,
you're a
bigger fool than you know.

Granted again. You're on a roll.


All I am trying to do is supplicate his rampant xenophobia, ignorance and
hatred with hard facts and objective analysis. Okay, maybe with a
slightly
left-of-center bias.

The most blind to hard facts are the leftists who claim we don't need to
seal
our borders and think that the Democrats don't deserve the lions share of
blame
for the death OF MILLIONS due to their policies.

Look, the Dems aren't saints.

When theri only phiosophy is to deny any success to the GOp they are actually
evil.

But I think of a number of places that the
Republicans were instrumental in death and destruction - Vietnam,

Started by Kennedy, escalated by LBJ and ended by Nixon.

Cambodia
(a country in Asia)
See above.

and Chile (a country in South America) for starters.

I keep hearing this charge but know really know the details other than the CIA
is supposed to have helped overthrow a duly elected government. Under which
administration?

I don't know how good your reading ability is, but try to read something on
Pol Pot, or the little-known movement called the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps you've
heard of UBL, his Afghani mujahideen was first supported by... oh yes, the
Republican administration of the 1980s.

Please reconize the context of this support.

Oh, and let us not forget Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad. But in the 1980s,
he was the enemy of our enemy so it was okay for us to turn a blind eye to
the fact that he was murdering his own people and pillaging his own
government. But now that we have to flex our military muscle to show the
world an example, it is convenient for us to take the moral high ground.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If you are serious about arguing, then please try to respond to these points
instead of calling me names and writing slurs and abuses.

Schizoid Man wrote:

"Mikermckelvy" wrote in message


From: "Schizoid Man"

cKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party,

Ooooh, so sorry, the Nazi thing automatically disqaulifies you.


Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an

outright

lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration,

Oh do tell me how my views differ from the Libertarians.


Uh, libertarians are pro-immigration. Unlike you, who has repeatedly (and in
this email) said that you want the borders sealed.

With one difference: People who come in become citizens. No idiots,
no criminals, and no deathly ill people either. Everyone else
not here legitimately - get OUT.

Three and one-half years of a republican president with a
republican majority in both houses of congress, and you blame
Bill Clinton!? Unbelievable!

Clinton made all you right-wingers look like such jackasses when
he was in office that I'm surprised you ever want to hear his name
again, much less bring him up every time Bush's incompetence shines
so brightly.
WS


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

Mikermckelvy" wrote in message

From: "Schizoid Man"

cKelvy's rightwing neoconservative views closely mirror those of Adolf
Hitler's Nazi Party,

Ooooh, so sorry, the Nazi thing automatically disqaulifies you.

Then he has the audacity to call himself a libertarian, which is an
outright
lie given his views on critical issues such as immigration,

Oh do tell me how my views differ from the Libertarians.

Uh, libertarians are pro-immigration.

So am I as long as it's legal. The sealing of borders would help make
that
easier.
It also has to with National Security. Open borders allow terrorists to
get
here easier.

Unlike you, who has repeatedly (and in
this email) said that you want the borders sealed.

legalization of
drugs,

I support the complete legalization of all drugs.he teaching of
evolution
in
schools, abortion, etc.

OK. Granted.

I am pro-choice, and an atheist so if you think I support creationism,
you're a
bigger fool than you know.

Granted again. You're on a roll.


All I am trying to do is supplicate his rampant xenophobia, ignorance
and
hatred with hard facts and objective analysis. Okay, maybe with a
slightly
left-of-center bias.

The most blind to hard facts are the leftists who claim we don't need
to
seal
our borders and think that the Democrats don't deserve the lions share
of
blame
for the death OF MILLIONS due to their policies.

Look, the Dems aren't saints.

When theri only phiosophy is to deny any success to the GOp they are
actually
evil.

But I think of a number of places that the
Republicans were instrumental in death and destruction - Vietnam,

Started by Kennedy, escalated by LBJ and ended by Nixon.

Cambodia
(a country in Asia)
See above.

and Chile (a country in South America) for starters.

I keep hearing this charge but know really know the details other than the
CIA
is supposed to have helped overthrow a duly elected government. Under
which
administration?

I don't know how good your reading ability is, but try to read something
on
Pol Pot, or the little-known movement called the Khmer Rouge. Perhaps
you've
heard of UBL, his Afghani mujahideen was first supported by... oh yes,
the
Republican administration of the 1980s.

Please reconize the context of this support.

Oh, and let us not forget Saddam, the butcher of Baghdad. But in the
1980s,
he was the enemy of our enemy so it was okay for us to turn a blind eye
to
the fact that he was murdering his own people and pillaging his own
government. But now that we have to flex our military muscle to show the
world an example, it is convenient for us to take the moral high ground.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

If you are serious about arguing, then please try to respond to these
points
instead of calling me names and writing slurs and abuses.

From: "bernard spilman"

Three and one-half years of a republican president with a
republican majority in both houses of congress, and you blame
Bill Clinton!? Unbelievable!

Clinton made all you right-wingers look like such jackasses when
he was in office that I'm surprised you ever want to hear his name
again, much less bring him up every time Bush's incompetence shines
so brightly.
WS

I guess it's because Clinton made the world a much more dangerous place by
allowing lax security at the nuclear labs, refusing to take Bin Laden when
offered and by selling nuclear reactors to the N. Koreans.

Ny comparison, Bush is a saint.

I guess it's because Clinton made the world a much more dangerous place by
allowing lax security at the nuclear labs, refusing to take Bin Laden when
offered and by selling nuclear reactors to the N. Koreans.


Please post specific proof of the lies you
have just told. No right-wing kook sources please.
Oh, I guess that won't be possible.
WS

"bernard spilman" wrote in message
. ..
I guess it's because Clinton made the world a much more dangerous place
by
allowing lax security at the nuclear labs, refusing to take Bin Laden
when
offered and by selling nuclear reactors to the N. Koreans.


Please post specific proof of the lies you
have just told. No right-wing kook sources please.
Oh, I guess that won't be possible.
WS

Try a search of any major newspaper fort those topics and you can prove it
yourself.

You do know that Clinto allowed reactors to be sold to N. Korea? This is
not a new story is common knowledge, but then look who I'm talking to.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2602995.stm

N. Korean nuclear reactor must go - The Beacon - Opinion











Entertainment
World News
National News
Sports
Technology








FIU.edu
SIS
Athletics
WRGP 88.1FM




Home Opinion
N. Korean nuclear reactor must go
By By Zev Chafets/ Knight Ridder Tribune
Published: Tuesday, January 21, 2003
Article Tools:Page 1 of 2

Until a few weeks, ago I didn't even know
the
name of the capital of North Korea. I want
to
say this right up front, so nobody takes me
for
an expert.

Because, when it comes to North Korea, the
experts clearly don't know what they're
talking
about.

In 1994, the experts in the Clinton
administration made this deal: North Korea
shuts
down its nuclear weapons program in return
for
U.S. help in building a nuclear reactor for
peaceful purposes.

In October, the North Koreans shocked the
experts by admitting they were still
secretly
trying to make nuclear weapons.

Next, they kicked International Atomic
Energy
Agency inspectors out of their Yongbyon
nuclear
facility. Within six months, Yongbyon can
probably produce six nukes.

The experts blamed this development on
President
Bush. He had driven the North Koreans to
desperate measures by including them in his
axis
of evil.

Then the experts found out - because the
North
Koreans told them - that they had been
cheating
on the deal since it was made, roughly six
years
before Bush's election.

OK, said the experts, what's done is done.
What
matters now is the future. They advocated
immediate negotiations to get North Korea to
agree to what it had agreed to, following
negotiations, in 1994.

Bush didn't get it. Why should the United
States
pay twice for the same merchandise? And what
made anyone think the North Koreans would
honor
their word this time?

A great chorus of expert denunciation
greeted
this unsophisticated, Texas cowboy approach.
The
North Koreans got themselves caught out on a
limb, said the experts. Talks are the ladder
that will allow them to climb down from the
tree.

So Bush did what he often does with expert
advice - he tried it. OK, he said, to the
North
Koreans, let's talk.

And North Korea said: No thanks. Instead, it
said it was pulling out of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty.

No nation in history has ever done























Report: China benefited from stolen nuclear secrets

May 20, 1999
Web posted at: 3:12 p.m. EDT (1912 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 20) -- Using U.S. technology, including
stolen secrets, China has been able to make substantial gains in modernizing
its own nuclear weapons program, according to those who have seen a
long-awaited congressional report that may be released on Thursday.

The 700-page report by a special House committee will be made public
following months of negotiations with the Clinton administration over how
much of it should remain classified.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
In this story:

Testimony: Spy concerns ignored
Reno names investigator
Report critical of weapons lab security

--------------------------------------------------------------------

According to people familiar with it, the report concludes that there
is little question that China has obtained critical information about an
array of U.S. warheads through theft from U.S. nuclear weapons labs as well
as meticulous scanning of publicly available information.


Testimony: Spy concerns ignored


Meantime, a senior intelligence officer for the Energy Department told
a Senate hearing Thursday of repeated attempts in early 1997 to bring his
concerns about espionage and lax security at weapons labs to then-Energy
Secretary Federico Pena, but said he was repeatedly thwarted by senior
department officials.

Notra Trulock, DOE's director of the office of intelligence from 1994
into early 1998, said his concerns -- many of which have since been
acknowledged -- were viewed with skepticism and "outright denial" as the
views of a group of "Cold War warriors."

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee also heard from Ed
Curran, the FBI official appointed to consolidate and lead the Energy
Department's counterintelligence efforts

Curran acknowledged that in the past there had been "no
accountability" and inadequate support from the department's top officials
to intelligence and security matters.

But Curran said things have changed since then and that he has always
been given direct access to the energy secretary.

In related developments Thursday:

. A separate, closed, hearing was scheduled by the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee. It was looking into national security matters relating to
the investigation of Wen Ho Lee, a physicist suspected of stealing military
secrets for China at the DOE's Los Alamos Nucleará Laboratory in New Mexico.

. Attorney General Janet Reno announced that she has selected a
veteran prosecutor, Randy Bellows, to head a four-member Justice Department
team to see if Justice or the FBI made any mistakes in investigating spy
allegations against Lee.

Security at weapons labs has been the subject of intense scrutiny
since early March when Lee was fired from Los Alamos. He has not been
charged with a crime and through his lawyer has denied providing nuclear
secrets to China or anyone else. Chinese officials also have denied that the
country stole secrets.

. The director of the Los Alamos laboratory says the facility has been
devastated by allegations of espionage and will take years to regain the
nation's trust. "It's certainly not going to happen in a year," Jon Browne
told the Albuquerque Journal. "I think you're talking about time frames in
the three- to five-year range of sustained performance in security."


Report critical of weapons lab security

In the year it spent preparing its report, the special House
committee, headed by Rep. Christopher Cox, R-California, heard extensive
testimony concerning the investigation surrounding Lee.

But the declassified version of the panel's report provides little
additional information about the Los Alamos investigation, said officials
familiar with the document.

Nevertheless, the report sharply criticizes security and
counterintelligence activities at three weapons research labs -- Los Alamos
and Sandia in New Mexico, and Lawrence Livermore in California -- saying it
has led to the loss of secrets to China under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, spanning more than two decades.

And the report maintains the security problems persist today and
adequate counterintelligence measures are unlikely to be in place before
2000, according to officials who summarized the findings but did not want to
be identified.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/25/cox.report.04/

CNN has lots on the security issue. Leftist enough for you, twit?