On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:15:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:11:54 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:55:36 +1100, John J > wrote:
> >
> >> So this FDA allows poisons in food, as discussed in an earlier thread,
> >> and allows food fraud. Interesting organization. Every country should
> >> have one like this!
> >
> >I don't blame the FDA. I blame the party of less government. You
> >want less government, you get less government and big business does
> >whatever it wants to do with no repercussions. Don't be upset that
> >the government isn't looking out for you, because you don't want it
> >to.
>
> The party of more government has been in power recently. Did they do
> any better? No.
>
> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> your money.

My choice is the party that looks out more for me.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:



>>
>> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> your money.
>
>My choice is the party that looks out more for me.

Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
two major ones look out only for themselves.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> your money.
> >
> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>
> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> two major ones look out only for themselves.

The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> >> your money.
>> >
>> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>>
>> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>
>The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
that is going to happen soon.
Janet US

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> >> your money.
> >> >
> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
> >>
> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
> >
> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
>
> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
> that is going to happen soon.
> Janet US

Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
don't wreck the country in the mean time.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
>> >> >> your money.
>> >> >
>> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>> >
>> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
>>
>> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
>> that is going to happen soon.
>> Janet US
>
>Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
>have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
>don't wreck the country in the mean time.

The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
close to winning.
Janet US

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:47:24 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> wrote:

> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:11:27 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700, Janet Bostwick
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 06:03:23 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:36:43 -0800, sf > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Both parties are corrupt. Take your choice of who you want to take
> >> >> >> your money.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My choice is the party that looks out more for me.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
> >> >> two major ones look out only for themselves.
> >> >
> >> >The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
> >> >choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
> >> >taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.
> >>
> >> The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
> >> that is going to happen soon.
> >> Janet US
> >
> >Unfortunately, they gerrimandered nice safe districts in 2010 so we
> >have to wait for the next census to make it right. Hopefully, they
> >don't wreck the country in the mean time.
>
> The census isn't going to fix it . . . they are currently in process
> of redistricting Virginia, Pennsylvania and plans for Wisconsin, Ohio
> and Iowa. Since they control the legislature and the governor, the
> process is not in doubt. What it does is fixes it so that even if the
> one party has way more votes than the other, there is absolutely no
> way that party will be able to get enough electoral votes to even come
> close to winning.
> Janet US

I'm amazed that's legal. I thought the point of redistricting was to
balance numbers of people while still retaining your seat.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:46:37 -0700 in rec.food.cooking, Janet
Bostwick > wrote,
>The crazy people have to be voted out first. It doesn't look like
>that is going to happen soon.

Of course not. Only crazy people run for office in the first place.

On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 09:00:28 -0800, sf > wrote:



>>
>> Oh, I didn't know there was a new party making serious inroads. The
>> two major ones look out only for themselves.
>
>The one I chose looks out for me and would do more if the party of NO
>choose to do some work in Washington instead of spend their time
>taking handouts from lobbyists and big business.

I still don't know what party you are talking about. Both the Dems
and Repubs in DC do that sort of thing. The Party of Angels does not
exist.

Remember how the Liar in Chief was not going to take big donations for
his Inauguration? This time around he was hoping for Million Dollar
donors to pay for it. Yeah, no influence to be had there huh?