Definitions:

Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their children.

Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who look
to the Republicans to support them.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

PENMART01 wrote:

> Definitions:
>
> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their children.
>
> Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who look
> to the Republicans to support them.
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
> Sheldon
> ````````````

I knew there was a reason why I liked you Sheldon. My state just got
a half million dollar plus bonus & federal congratulations for
increasing the number of households on food stamps from 56,376 to 65,760
in one year. With all of 513,000 households in the state. It's
reported by the AP as though it's a good thing. Grumble.

Jessica

(PENMART01) wrote in
:

> Definitions:
>
> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
>
> Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children,
> who look to the Republicans to support them.


+

Diplomat: A person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you
actually look forward to the trip.

"PENMART01" > wrote in message
...
> Definitions:
>
> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
>
> Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who
> look
> to the Republicans to support them.
>


Haha! I thought Republicans were a group of guys who need a mirror to see
their respective penii and have an axe to grind! Think about it....

Jack Sight

PENMART01 wrote:
>
> Definitions:
>
> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their children.
>

You forgot... "with the next generation's money."


> Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who look
> to the Republicans to support them.

You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?

gloria p

>puester fiddled:
>
>PENMART01 wrote:
>>
>> Definitions:
>>
>> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
>children.
>>
>
> You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
>> Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
>> addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who
>look
>> to the Republicans to support them.
>
>You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?

You're obviously a grasshopper, not an ant.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

"Puester" > wrote in message
...
> PENMART01 wrote:
> >
> > Definitions:
> >
> > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
children.
> >
>
> You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children, who
look
> > to the Republicans to support them.
>
> You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
>
> gloria p

Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??

"YYZedd" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Puester" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PENMART01 wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitions:
> > >
> > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
> > >
> >
> > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> >
> >
> > > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children,
who
> look
> > > to the Republicans to support them.
> >
> > You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
> >
> > gloria p
>
> Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??
>
>

Depends on yuor income. 15k could be too much, enough, or inadequate. Since
you are willing to boast about your taxes I don't doubt that we can expect
some boasts about your income to follow.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message .com>...
> "YYZedd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > >
> > >
> > > > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > > > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children,
> who
> look
> > > > to the Republicans to support them.
> > >
> > > You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
> > >
> > > gloria p
> >
> > Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??
> >
> >
>
> Depends on yuor income. 15k could be too much, enough, or inadequate. Since
> you are willing to boast about your taxes I don't doubt that we can expect
> some boasts about your income to follow.

That $15K in taxes?????
That's twice what I GROSSED last year
Lynn in Fargo
definately a democrat

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> "YYZedd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > >
> > >
> > > > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > > > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their children,
> who
> > look
> > > > to the Republicans to support them.
> > >
> > > You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
> > >
> > > gloria p
> >
> > Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??
> >
> >
>
> Depends on yuor income. 15k could be too much, enough, or inadequate.
Since
> you are willing to boast about your taxes I don't doubt that we can expect
> some boasts about your income to follow.

My intent was not to be boastful. It was sarcasm pointed and the clueless,
leftist, rhetoric that Gloria puked up for us.

"YYZedd" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > "YYZedd" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Definitions:
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and
their
> > > children.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > > > > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their
children,
> > who
> > > look
> > > > > to the Republicans to support them.
> > > >
> > > > You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
> > > >
> > > > gloria p
> > >
> > > Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Depends on yuor income. 15k could be too much, enough, or inadequate.
> Since
> > you are willing to boast about your taxes I don't doubt that we can
expect
> > some boasts about your income to follow.
>
> My intent was not to be boastful. It was sarcasm pointed and the clueless,
> leftist, rhetoric that Gloria puked up for us.
>
>


Clueless? Leftist? It's a fact that many very wealthy people pay no taxes,
or some trivial amount. It's a pretty safe bet too that they are all or
mostly republicans. How is pointing this out either clueless or leftist?
Many conservatives (true conservatives, that is) are just as outraged at
some wealthy people wiggling out of their obligations as any leftist.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
. com...
> "YYZedd" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > "YYZedd" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and
> their
> > > > children.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Democrats: lazy whiny *******s on the dole, with a plethora of
> > > > > > addictions/emotional issues who don't know which are their
> children,
> > > who
> > > > look
> > > > > > to the Republicans to support them.
> > > > >
> > > > > You mean those rich Republicans who don't pay any taxes?
> > > > >
> > > > > gloria p
> > > >
> > > > Damn, I guess you don't seem to think my $15k last year is enough??
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Depends on yuor income. 15k could be too much, enough, or inadequate.
> > Since
> > > you are willing to boast about your taxes I don't doubt that we can
> expect
> > > some boasts about your income to follow.
> >
> > My intent was not to be boastful. It was sarcasm pointed and the
clueless,
> > leftist, rhetoric that Gloria puked up for us.
> >
> >
>
>
> Clueless? Leftist? It's a fact that many very wealthy people pay no taxes,
> or some trivial amount. It's a pretty safe bet too that they are all or
> mostly republicans. How is pointing this out either clueless or leftist?
> Many conservatives (true conservatives, that is) are just as outraged at
> some wealthy people wiggling out of their obligations as any leftist.

Ok, so how much is enough then? What do you consider "very wealthy"?

Many of the people you are referring to are probably retired. They have no
more job income which is what the biggest part of taxes are based on. If I
am retired and have no income, but I am sitting on $2 million nestegg that I
have to live on the rest of my life, of course I am going to protect it as
much as possible.

I am sorry but the class warfare arguments get me stirred up every time.

If the current administration didn't send so many jobs overseas...the
number of families needing food stamps would not have increased so
drastically....

"YYZedd" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> . com...

<much snipping of old messages>

> > Clueless? Leftist? It's a fact that many very wealthy people pay no
taxes,
> > or some trivial amount. It's a pretty safe bet too that they are all or
> > mostly republicans. How is pointing this out either clueless or leftist?
> > Many conservatives (true conservatives, that is) are just as outraged at
> > some wealthy people wiggling out of their obligations as any leftist.
>
> Ok, so how much is enough then? What do you consider "very wealthy"?
>
> Many of the people you are referring to are probably retired. They have no
> more job income which is what the biggest part of taxes are based on. If I
> am retired and have no income, but I am sitting on $2 million nestegg that
I
> have to live on the rest of my life, of course I am going to protect it as
> much as possible.
>
> I am sorry but the class warfare arguments get me stirred up every time.
>

A retired person with $2 mil is hardly wealthy, let alone "very wealthy." I
am talking about the CEOs, business owners, and others who have many
millions of dollars of income each year (never mind their "nest egg") yet
manage to pay either no taxes or some miniscule percentage in taxes. Same
for corporations who set up shop in the Bahamas (or wherever) and avoid
their taxes.

I agree with you that the class warfare argument is bankrupt, but that does
not mean that some of the specifics that they bring up are not valid. When
someone earning $75k pays 12% of their income in taxes while someone earning
$5 million pays 0.5% there is something wrong and "class warfare" has
nothing to do with it.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"not long AGO" > wrote in message
...
> If the current administration didn't send so many jobs overseas...the
> number of families needing food stamps would not have increased so
> drastically....
>

The administration doesn't send jobs anywhere - corporations do.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:05:24 GMT, Puester >
wrote:

>PENMART01 wrote:
>>
>> Definitions:
>>
>> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their children.
>>
>
> You forgot... "with the next generation's money."

Bingo!

So few people seem to get the above. Sure, Republicans are more
careful with theirs and their neighbors' money. They can afford to be
because they're spending their grandkids' money instead.

I note, as well, that every single criticism of this post addresses
the second point--Republicans not paying taxes--but not the first.

Hmmm;-)

Andy Katz

************************************************** *************
Being lied to so billionaires can wage war for profits
while indebting taxpayers for generations to come, now
that's just a tad bit bigger than not admitting you like
the big moist-moist lips of chunky trollops on your pecker.

Paghat, the Rat Girl

"Andy Katz" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:05:24 GMT, Puester >
> wrote:
>
> >PENMART01 wrote:
> >>
> >> Definitions:
> >>
> >> Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
children.
> >>
> >
> > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
> Bingo!
>
> So few people seem to get the above. Sure, Republicans are more
> careful with theirs and their neighbors' money. They can afford to be
> because they're spending their grandkids' money instead.
>
> I note, as well, that every single criticism of this post addresses
> the second point--Republicans not paying taxes--but not the first.
>

Excellent points! The dems may be "tax and spend" but the republicans are
"borrow and spend" - which do you want?


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

> That $15K in taxes?????
> That's twice what I GROSSED last year
> Lynn in Fargo
> definately a democrat

So, you don't work full time making minimum wage.

....and you cannot spell

and you apparently think 'we' should support 'you'????

Something we should all aspire to.

>
> Clueless? Leftist? It's a fact that many very wealthy people pay no taxes,
> or some trivial amount. It's a pretty safe bet too that they are all or
> mostly republicans. How is pointing this out either clueless or leftist?
> Many conservatives (true conservatives, that is) are just as outraged at
> some wealthy people wiggling out of their obligations as any leftist.

What FACT that the wealthy pay NO taxes?

www.irs.gov/taxstats

for 2001:

Top 50% of all taxpayers adjusted gross income is above $28,528
64,708,526 tax returns filed
Group adjusted gross income was $5,379,286,000,000
Income taxes paid by this top 50% was $852,642,000,000
Of this top 50%, they paid 96% of ALL the taxes collected
the average tax rate for all of that top 50% was 15.9%
the average tax paid by the top 50% was $13,238
__________________________________________________ _______

Bottom 50% of all tax payers AGI is below $28,528
64,708,526 tax returns were filed
Group adjusted gross income was $861,750,000,000
Income tax paid by this bottom 50% was $35,240,000,000
of this bottom 50%, they paid 4% of all taxes collected
average tax rate for the bottom 50% was 4.1%
average tax paid by bottom 50% was $547

__________________________________________________ ______

More specifically:
top 1% of all tax payers had income above $292,913
top 1% filed 1,288,171 returns
the group AGI was $1,094,296,000,000
the top 1% paid $300,898,000,000
this top 1% paid 34% of all taxes collected
their average tax rate on their income was 27.5%
their average tax paid was $233,585

PERCENTAGE WISE the top 1% paid out a lot more of their income.

Get YOUR facts straight.

My paycheck is not signed by anyone in the bottom 50%, and neitehr is yours.

"CindyThe Tax Lady" > wrote in message
om...
> >
> > Clueless? Leftist? It's a fact that many very wealthy people pay no
taxes,
> > or some trivial amount. It's a pretty safe bet too that they are all or
> > mostly republicans. How is pointing this out either clueless or leftist?
> > Many conservatives (true conservatives, that is) are just as outraged at
> > some wealthy people wiggling out of their obligations as any leftist.
>
> What FACT that the wealthy pay NO taxes?
>
> www.irs.gov/taxstats
>

<irrelevant statistics snipped>

> PERCENTAGE WISE the top 1% paid out a lot more of their income.
>
> Get YOUR facts straight.
>
> My paycheck is not signed by anyone in the bottom 50%, and neitehr is
yours.

Can't you read? Sheesh, I never claimed that *all* wealthy people pay
no/little tax, I claimed that *some* do. The stats you presented, which are
group averages, are not germane to my claim.

Also, before you present statistics - even irrelevant ones - you should be
sure you understand them which you clearly do not in this case. The
percentages you quote are of adjusted gross income - and the wealthy who
avoid taxes do so by not having much of their income appear in their AGI.
Duh!

And how do you know who signs my paycheck?


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 20:02:48 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:

>"CindyThe Tax Lady" > wrote in message

>>
>> www.irs.gov/taxstats
>>
>
><irrelevant statistics snipped>
>
>> PERCENTAGE WISE the top 1% paid out a lot more of their income.

>Can't you read? Sheesh, I never claimed that *all* wealthy people pay
>no/little tax, I claimed that *some* do. The stats you presented, which are
>group averages, are not germane to my claim.
>
>Also, before you present statistics - even irrelevant ones - you should be
>sure you understand them which you clearly do not in this case. The
>percentages you quote are of adjusted gross income - and the wealthy who
>avoid taxes do so by not having much of their income appear in their AGI.
>Duh!
>
>And how do you know who signs my paycheck?

Peter

Point, Set, Match to Cindy the Tax Lady
Pan Ohco

> My paycheck is not signed by anyone in the bottom 50%, and neitehr is yours.
=========================================
Now who cannot spell?
Lynn in Fargo
Betting my next teeny tiny paycheck that Cindy the Tax Lady is a "christian".
(With all apologies to the caring and sharing Christians whom I admire)

In article >,
(Lynn Gifford) wrote:

> Betting my next teeny tiny paycheck that Cindy the Tax Lady is a
> "christian".


May I ask what the heck this has to do with anything?

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove Do Not and Spam to email

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

See my Blog at: http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/

> "Puester" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PENMART01 wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitions:
> > >
> > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
> > >
> >
> > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."


Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

> "Puester" > wrote in message
> ...
> > PENMART01 wrote:
> > >
> > > Definitions:
> > >
> > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> children.
> > >
> >
> > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."


Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Yeah, he paid Al Gore to lose his own state, which, had he won would have
gotten him the election. Then he paid the Supreme Court to tell Florida that
if they were going to recount votes, they couldn't hand pick the districts
in which to do so, it had to be all districts like it said in Florida state
law.

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Yeah, he paid Al Gore to lose his own state, which, had he won would have
gotten him the election. Then he paid the Supreme Court to tell Florida that
if they were going to recount votes, they couldn't hand pick the districts
in which to do so, it had to be all districts like it said in Florida state
law.

Dan Abel > wrote:

And who will crush the moron and his ambulance chasing partner in crime
in a few weeks.

Honestly I wish Jackass John could articulate where he stands on key
issues.

Stolen aircrafte piloted by rag headed dogs flying into the WTC.......

What a *nuisance*

> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Dan Abel > wrote:

And who will crush the moron and his ambulance chasing partner in crime
in a few weeks.

Honestly I wish Jackass John could articulate where he stands on key
issues.

Stolen aircrafte piloted by rag headed dogs flying into the WTC.......

What a *nuisance*

> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
bought??

Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single Senator to
sign on.

"Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.

A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."

http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm

Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time, there
were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us just
exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these DEMOCRATS??????




> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
>

Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Definitions:
> > > >
> > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
>
>
> Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.

Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
bought??

Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single Senator to
sign on.

"Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
college votes for George W. Bush.

A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."

http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm

Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time, there
were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us just
exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these DEMOCRATS??????




> --
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
>

Mark Cook > wrote:

Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............

> Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Definitions:
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > > children.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> >
> >
> > Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> > the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.
>
> Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
> bought??
>
> Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
> slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
> U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
> challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single Senator to
> sign on.
>
> "Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
> Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
> college votes for George W. Bush.
>
> A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
> in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
> U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
> submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."
>
> http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm
>
> Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time, there
> were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us just
> exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these DEMOCRATS??????
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > Sonoma State University
> > AIS
> >

Mark Cook > wrote:

Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............

> Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Definitions:
> > > > >
> > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and their
> > > children.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> >
> >
> > Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example is
> > the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.
>
> Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
> bought??
>
> Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
> slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
> U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
> challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single Senator to
> sign on.
>
> "Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
> Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25 electoral
> college votes for George W. Bush.
>
> A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be presented
> in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under 3
> U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
> submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."
>
> http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm
>
> Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time, there
> were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us just
> exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these DEMOCRATS??????
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Dan Abel
> > Sonoma State University
> > AIS
> >

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mark Cook > wrote:
>
> Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............

Are you the moderator or something? Maybe you should point this comment to
the original poster.

Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to read this kind of stuff, then don't
read it.

YYZedd > wrote:

It's pointed at anybody stupid enough to vote democrat or spend $10 on
fatso's film.................

> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Mark Cook > wrote:
> >
> > Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............
>
> Are you the moderator or something? Maybe you should point this comment to
> the original poster.
>
> Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to read this kind of stuff, then don't
> read it.

YYZedd > wrote:

It's pointed at anybody stupid enough to vote democrat or spend $10 on
fatso's film.................

> "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Mark Cook > wrote:
> >
> > Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............
>
> Are you the moderator or something? Maybe you should point this comment to
> the original poster.
>
> Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to read this kind of stuff, then don't
> read it.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> YYZedd > wrote:
>
> It's pointed at anybody stupid enough to vote democrat or spend $10 on
> fatso's film.................

I must apologize since I thought you meant take this whole thread elsewhere
=)

>
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Mark Cook > wrote:
> > >
> > > Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............
> >
> > Are you the moderator or something? Maybe you should point this comment
to
> > the original poster.
> >
> > Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to read this kind of stuff, then
don't
> > read it.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> YYZedd > wrote:
>
> It's pointed at anybody stupid enough to vote democrat or spend $10 on
> fatso's film.................

I must apologize since I thought you meant take this whole thread elsewhere
=)

>
> > "The Wolf" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > Mark Cook > wrote:
> > >
> > > Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............
> >
> > Are you the moderator or something? Maybe you should point this comment
to
> > the original poster.
> >
> > Oh, and by the way, if you don't want to read this kind of stuff, then
don't
> > read it.

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mark Cook > wrote:
>
> Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............

I suggest that you re-read what I wrote. Do you really think that moveon.org
believes that the DEMOCRATS threw the election to Bush???

> > Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and
their
> > > > children.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example
is
> > > the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.
> >
> > Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
> > bought??
> >
> > Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
> > slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
> > U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
> > challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single
Senator to
> > sign on.
> >
> > "Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
> > Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25
electoral
> > college votes for George W. Bush.
> >
> > A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be
presented
> > in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under
3
> > U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
> > submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."
> >
> > http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm
> >
> > Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time,
there
> > were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us
just
> > exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these
DEMOCRATS??????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > Sonoma State University
> > > AIS
> > >

"The Wolf" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mark Cook > wrote:
>
> Take your moveone.org crap somewhere else loser...............

I suggest that you re-read what I wrote. Do you really think that moveon.org
believes that the DEMOCRATS threw the election to Bush???

> > Dan Abel" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > > "Puester" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > PENMART01 wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitions:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Republicans: those willing and able to support themselves and
their
> > > > children.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You forgot... "with the next generation's money."
> > >
> > >
> > > Not to mention *last* generation's money. My favorite current example
is
> > > the US President, George W. Bush, who bought the last election.
> >
> > Really?? You do realize that you are telling us that DEMOCRATS can be
> > bought??
> >
> > Under the Electoral Count Act of 1887, Congress can challenge a state's
> > slate of electors if they believe that they were sent in violation of 3
> > U.S.C. section 5. The Congressional Black Caucus in the House filed a
> > challenge to the Florida results, but they could not get a single
Senator to
> > sign on.
> >
> > "Washington, DC - Congresswoman Barbara Lee today joined members of the
> > Congressional Black Caucus in opposition to counting Florida's 25
electoral
> > college votes for George W. Bush.
> >
> > A formal objection to counting Florida's electoral votes must be
presented
> > in writing, signed by at least one Senator and one Representative, under
3
> > U.S.C. section 15. Unfortunately, not one single Member of the Senate
> > submitted an objection, thereby rendering the objection out of order."
> >
> > http://www.house.gov/lee/releases/01Jan06.htm
> >
> > Including Al Gore, who was the President of the Senate at the time,
there
> > were 51 DEMOCRATS who failed to get on board. Do you care to tell us
just
> > exactly how much money it took to buy off all 51 of these
DEMOCRATS??????
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > --
> > > Dan Abel
> > > Sonoma State University
> > > AIS
> > >