assuming this is true, and he did that, this is not collaboration.
>The Jewish Council asked the little kids to hand out the deportation
> notices. I was told to go to the Jewish Council. And there I was given
> these
> small slips of paper ... It said report to the rabbi seminary at 9 am ..
riginal Message-
From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:critic...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2012 11:09 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
"Finally funny how you bring up Soros so much, and with the typical
accusations.
Yet the uber rich that
"That is avery disingenuous and sleazy innuendo."
That's a very serious allegation considering how much you use it. I'll
have to consider it since you know so much about it.
"Very like what McCarthy tried to do."
Case in point. McCarthy was actually right about a number of things. Here
you
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "Hehe. I have actually had a number of dealings with wikipedia articles
> lately,
> and one thing they have not done for me is make me any more likely to
> think something is *not* wild-eyed because it has a wikipedia article."
>
> Exactl
"Hehe. I have actually had a number of dealings with wikipedia articles lately,
and one thing they have not done for me is make me any more likely to
think something is *not* wild-eyed because it has a wikipedia article."
Exactly. Wikipedia is just another reference. It is not a definitive
sou
I am certainly no fan of Hlary's but here is the thesis:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5577966/Hillary-Rodham-Clintons-Wellesley-College-Senior-Thesis-1969
It is certainly not the worshipful screed of Alinsky that her critics claim.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:50 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> "On the contrary,
"On the contrary, see above. But I used to get a lot of blank stares
> when I talked
> about this. As for the rest of what you say here, I have no information,
> but it sounds pretty wild-eyed to me."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_senior_thesis
Hehe. I have actually had a numbe
"Apparently not."
If you see a contradiction, so be it. It doesn't matter to me.
"Who knows? Depends on what communities it was applied in, and how well."
I see.
"On the contrary, see above. But I used to get a lot of blank stares
when I talked
about this. As for the rest of what you say h
>
>
> My views of him are not contradictory and are pretty easy to pick up. I
> don't know how anyone can even began to come to that conclusion.
>
Apparently not.
Let me ask this: In your opinion, who was Alinsky trying to help and did
> it work?
>
Who knows? Depends on what communities it wa
"Wait... weren't you just complaining that he practiced the politics
of division,
or something like that? You're entitled to not like the guy, but you get
bonus points if your reasons aren't mutually contradictory."
My views of him are not contradictory and are pretty easy to pick up. I
don't k
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 6:23 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a
> US government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers."
>
> I'll give you that he was a pragmatist. But, so were Stalin and Mao.
Wait... weren't you
"and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a
US government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers."
I'll give you that he was a pragmatist. But, so were Stalin and Mao.
"I know the right has been demonizing him because of the Chicago-organizer
link to
have you actually read his book, or anything about him? This really sounds
like the Fox News version of his life. Or does saying that make me a
progressive statist too? I really want to know if you'll apply the term to
someone who left Canada because they didn't like the nanny state :)
On Thu, Ja
and a pragmatist. He was all about building coalitions, and VISTA (a US
government agency) used to use his book to train their volunteers. I know
the right has been demonizing him because of the Chicago-organizer link to
Obama, but that has about as much validity as Freedom fries had back in the
d
"Because it damn well treats people better than the botched abortion on toast
that is the current system."
I don't want myths. I want NUMBERS.
"Again if you cannot show any demonstrable evidence then you're just blowing
it out your butt."
Fine. I am blowing it out my butt. Just like that my
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "I am not interested in myths. "
>
> Well good God, why are you a progressive statist?
Because it damn well treats people better than the botched abortion on
toast that is the current system.
>
>
>
> "Now I am calling you on it. Where is
Love it, can I steal that?
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
>
> In the end, I don't think you care about the argument as much as you don't
> like to see Obama's integrity challenged. One thing I have noticed is that
> progressive statists can instantly believe the fallib
"I am not interested in myths. "
Well good God, why are you a progressive statist?
"Now I am calling you on it. Where is the proof?"
Larry, I have given you all the proof I need to give you. Take it or leave
it. Call it an opinion. Ignore it. Call me a liar, a propagator,
whatever you wan
BTW have you ever read Alinsky or have any idea of what he did? If so
you would never be parrotting the right wing myth about the evils of
the man. For instance you know that he was quite conservative and a
republican.
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> I am not interested
I am not interested in myths. You made a statement that requires
proof. Now I am calling you on it. Where is the proof?
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 8:59 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "Again no numbers etc., just more 'The Sky is Falling!!!'
>
>
> It's amazing. Progressive statists can't connect the d
"Again no numbers etc., just more 'The Sky is Falling!!!'
It's amazing. Progressive statists can't connect the dots when it doesn't
fit their world view but they have no problem connecting the dots along the
lines of Trig Truthers, 911 Truthers, Florida 2000 Truthers, Ohio Diebold
Truthers, and
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation for
> votes from the green movement."
>
> Aside from common sense, what do you need?
Actual numbers instead of rhetoric would help. If its not there then
obviously all
"specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation for
votes from the green movement."
Aside from common sense, what do you need? You think they made a document
and posted it on the net? Is there a recording somewhere? Please.
Sometimes, one has to connect the dots. Howev
I don't think log run is in their vocabulary...
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 7:07 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
A lot of our gas comes from Canada. Still doesn&#
A lot of our gas comes from Canada. Still doesn't mean that allowing
them to build a pipeline without complying with the rules is a good
idea. As with nuclear power, drilling, tar sands or any other
process, energy that is not safely produced is not cheap in the long
run. But tell that to the g
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> I the republicans didn't block the bills for those shovel ready jobs, they
> would be there. Despite all of that he was able to staunch the hemorrhaging
> of jobs the economy saw under Bush and get the numbers moving in a positive
> direct
That was in the news...
-Original Message-
From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:15 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
this is I think the third time that Leahy has introduced copyright
legislation
l.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 6:09 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
> Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline
> would not affect them for decades. There have been multiple
> statements of how
http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/07/the-democrats-corruption-problem/
Speaking of corruption
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Eric Roberts
wrote:
>
> What corruption?
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.am
what? Can you not get bipartisan through your head, Sam? You're still
talking about "Republican issue" I am saying that the current copyright
legislation has members of both parties on each side. Issa, for example, is
on the right side on this one, and Boxer and Feinstein are not. And Issa is
Here here!
Or is it Hear Hear?
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> ya? What did she do that was corrupt, supposedly? I have only mildly been
> paying attention, but I thought the Republicans mainly thought she was a
> bitch, which... well, is an appellation that gets thrown arou
http://nation.foxnews.com/nancy-pelosi/2011/11/14/60-minutes-exposes-pelosi-corruption
Finally something I agree with, and yet you seem to be attacking for
defending Boehner.
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> There were actually several threads regarding Pelosi and her purp
..it's zombie legislation...
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Dana [mailto:dana.tier...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:08 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
>
>
> check out Obama's campaign co
So now you're bi-partisan?
What Republican issue did you support that dems were against?
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and
> Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is
> bipartisan.
> Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline
> would not affect them for decades. There have been multiple
> statements of how many jobs would be created, but even if you accept
> the highest estimate of 179,000 jobs by 2035, it would have almost nil
> effect on unemploy
FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
check out Obama's campaign contributions from Hollywood. I was worried that
he would sign it. Still am, a little. That he had to come out against it is
a measure of how bad the bill really is. I am still afraid that while we are
looking at the
: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and
Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is
bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many
other issues. It is possible to decide
What corruption?
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:sammyc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 2:41 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: FW: Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
This is not about Pelosi. Remember the other thread about Pelosi's
corruption? Yeah, w
I agree with the effect of money on elections. However. If it gets to a
certain level of egregiousness, action should be taken, such as took place
with what's his name, the exterminator from Sugarland. Since she certainly
doesn't seem any less disliked than he was, the fact that nothing has been
f
ya? What did she do that was corrupt, supposedly? I have only mildly been
paying attention, but I thought the Republicans mainly thought she was a
bitch, which... well, is an appellation that gets thrown around a lot,
shall we say. Nonetheless. If there are credible grounds for corruption
charges,
Obama's Hollywood contributors aren't the big corporations behind
these bills. In fact, a large number of those in the entertainment
industry aren't very happy the companies controlling the record labels
and film distribution. See recent statements by George Lucas
regarding his latest film, and
Except that House rule 3 clearly states that "members shall vote on
each question put, except having a direct personal or pecuniary
interest in the event of each question."
http://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/fin%20trans%20pink%20sheet.pdf
- pp3-4.
And they give a very specific
General consensus among the opposition is that she uses her position
frequently for financial gain. Lots of mud has been thrown, but no
legal action has ever been taken against her. She is probably not
lily white, but I would bet a gold dollar that you could not find a
single member of any legis
check out Obama's campaign contributions from Hollywood. I was worried that
he would sign it. Still am, a little. That he had to come out against it is
a measure of how bad the bill really is. I am still afraid that while we
are looking at the SOPA boogieman, compromise legislation will go through
Absolutely true in this case. I am aghast that Patrick Leahy, who was
one of the very few politicians I actually liked, introduced the PIPA
bill. Did some serious rethinking of my opinion of him as a result.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> Indeed. The whole copyright legislat
There were actually several threads regarding Pelosi and her purported
corruption on the list last summer. No proof however, just
accusations as usual. I hate the whole concept of deciding guilt by
public opinion, whether the accused is Pelosi or Boehner. Due
Process, people. It's there for a
Indeed. The whole copyright legislation issue involves both Democrats and
Republican legislators. Opposition and support for these bills is
bipartisan. The people who spoke up about it yesterday disagree on many
other issues. It is possible to decide something is wrong without checking
the party l
A sitting Congress cannot vote themselves pay increases, they can only
vote an increase for the next Congress, of which they may or may not
be part.
Just curious. How many pay raises has Congress received over the last 20 years?
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:46 PM, GMoney wrote:
> Doesn't Congres
Oil prices aren't skyrocketing, and even if they were, this pipeline
would not affect them for decades. There have been multiple
statements of how many jobs would be created, but even if you accept
the highest estimate of 179,000 jobs by 2035, it would have almost nil
effect on unemployment rates
you're in charge of finding a reason to start one, Sam.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> This is not about Pelosi. Remember the other thread about Pelosi's
> corruption? Yeah, we had none.
>
> But it's nice to pretend you would care.
>
> .
>
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Da
Your article mention Exxon, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.
They are big companies.
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Not just oil companies, but specifically companies that are partnered
> in the Keystone XL project. Like companies who specialize in making
> the pipes, o
Ah, there are issues with the pipeline route too? I assumed the concerns
were around the extraction process. Cause this is tar-sand oil, right?
Noted, then, though the main point I was trying to make was even if you
don't believe the problem is some sort of attempt at responsible
stewardship -- w
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
> When you stand
> to make a lot of money as a result of your abuse of office, isn't that
> corruption?
>
I don't know...is it? Are legislators forever required to only vote on
issues that guarantee they will LOSE money...?
Doesn't Congress
The environmental issue have been resolved.
Compliance, permits all done.
This is about politics and for some reason this admin thinks permanent
high unemployment and skyrocketing oil prices is good.
Unfortunately many agree with him simply because he's not a Republican.
Sad.
.
On Thu, Jan 19
This is not about Pelosi. Remember the other thread about Pelosi's
corruption? Yeah, we had none.
But it's nice to pretend you would care.
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> but you still stand by saying I want to give the Democrats a pass, huh?
> Just wanna correct the failure
Not just oil companies, but specifically companies that are partnered
in the Keystone XL project. Like companies who specialize in making
the pipes, or TransCanada etc. In other words he stands to make a
substantial profit because of his legislative efforts. When you stand
to make a lot of money a
Basically a Canadian firm is trying to build a pipeline through what
some say are environmentally sensitive areas of the US without
compliance with the permitting process, and members of Congress set
what White House claims is an unreasonable deadline for the permit to
be issued that does not giv
but you still stand by saying I want to give the Democrats a pass, huh?
Just wanna correct the failure to crop out what I actually said ;)
Sam, you're amazing
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Sorry bad cropping.
> take it from here:
>
> > If Boehner is corrupt, as it would seem
Sorry bad cropping.
take it from here:
> If Boehner is corrupt, as it would seem from the little I
> > have read about this, then that is bad and he should be prosecuted.
.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Dana wrote:
>
> I am amused that you cropped down to the paragraph that said Pelosi shou
I am amused that you cropped down to the paragraph that said Pelosi should
be prosecuted if she has done something corrupt, before you accused me of
giving the Democrats a pass.
I am against corruption. Period.
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> Boehner invested in Oil companies,
Boehner invested in Oil companies, like most Americans do. Either
through 401ks or buying shares. This pipeline will not make the oil
companies rich. They will always be rich, it's just another small
project for them but a huge one for America.
But tar and feather anyone with an R next to their n
specific evidence please. Not rhetoric like "selling out job creation
for votes from the green movement."
Is there a specific agreement? Has this been publicized in a reputable
newspaper, not world net daily btw.
Boehner's involvement is very clear and is mostly there for all to
see. His financi
job creation, lol. Don't wear the words out before the general election ;)
I am as cynical as the next person, but also willing to consider that
perhaps the cost-benefit ratio had a part in the decision. I have not
really researched the matter and won't have time to do so, but I have an
open mind
"I was just pointing out the corruption involved on the Republican side."
But why didn't you bring out the corruption of the
Democrats, particularly President Obama selling out job creation for votes
from the green movement. It's okay to be balanced.
"The speaker stands to make hundreds of th
Let's hear the other sides point of view:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288490/obama-s-forced-keystone-decision-rejects-jobs-energy-and-logic-nicolas-loris
.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Now watch the Republicans whine about not making as much money as th
I get it, this is when we pretend .01 percent represents the lot.
Very funny.
.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> It really went down like conversations I have with my 5 year, with the
> GOP playing their usual part as the truculent child.
>
> Dept. of State: "There are
yes but that is a child. We talking adult republican politicians here
who have no restraints whatsoever.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> It really went down like conversations I have with my 5 year, with the
> GOP playing their usual part as the truculent child.
>
> Dep
It really went down like conversations I have with my 5 year, with the
GOP playing their usual part as the truculent child.
Dept. of State: "There are a couple options here that we need time to
look at. I'm not sure that the one you are currently proposing is a
good idea."
Congressional GOP: "NO
no I'm pointing out some of the more egregious ones. Thing is that the
corruption involving keystone is blatant. The speaker stands to make
hundreds of thousands based solely on his position. Other republican
house members also stand to make a lot. And I have not mentioned the
political contributi
oh, ok.that's kinda like pointing out the blue sky and the green grass.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> I'm entirely neutral. I was just pointing out the corruption involved
> on the Republican side.
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, GMoney wrote:
> >
> > Are
I'm entirely neutral. I was just pointing out the corruption involved
on the Republican side.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 12:37 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Aren't you in favor of this pipeline Is attacking "them" so engrained
> in your marrow that you can't help it, even when you agree with "them"?
>
Aren't you in favor of this pipeline Is attacking "them" so engrained
in your marrow that you can't help it, even when you agree with "them"?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Now watch the Republicans whine about not making as much money as they
> were slated to do
Now watch the Republicans whine about not making as much money as they
were slated to do.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71598.html
Obama administration to reject Keystone XL
By: Darren Goode
January 18, 2012 11:51 AM EST
The State Department Wednesday will reject the Keystone XL pip
73 matches
Mail list logo
