Yes...that is what I am referring to Larry...
-Original Message-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2013 1:27 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting spanked in polls after shutdown.
Daily testing. rather it should be
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:44 PM
> > To: cf-community
> > Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting spanked in polls after shutdown.
> >
> >
> > Yep..el
2000.
>
> Eric
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:44 PM
> To: cf-community
> Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting spanked in polls after shutdown.
>
>
> Yep..eliminate them entirely unle
the
information you just stated greatly misinformed you. I have been a type 2
diabetic since 2000.
Eric
-Original Message-
From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:44 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting spanked in polls after
-
From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:larrycly...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 5:13 PM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting spanked in polls after shutdown.
Actually the diabetic testing equipment can be quite expensive. Strips, if
you're purchasing them yourself c
OK, that makes sense. I thought you were advocating no treatment for type 2.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Yep..eliminate them entirely unless the person using them is testing to
> adjust medication intake, because otherwise they serve no purpose but to
> enrich the make
Yep..eliminate them entirely unless the person using them is testing to
adjust medication intake, because otherwise they serve no purpose but to
enrich the makers. An over the counter A1C test once a month will tell you
all you need to know about your blood sugar levels.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2
Actually the diabetic testing equipment can be quite expensive. Strips, if
you're purchasing them yourself can go from $100 a month up. Then there is
all the other expenses. Can can see someone with only social security
having to choose between test strips and other bills.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 a
Wait, eliminate testing and supplies from people with type 2 diabetes?
Really?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Or just eliminate from Medicare and Medicaid expeditures all of the
> unnecessary items, like diabetic testing equipment and supplies for those
> who don't have T
Or just eliminate from Medicare and Medicaid expeditures all of the
unnecessary items, like diabetic testing equipment and supplies for those
who don't have Type I diabetes. A multi-billion dollar industry funded
mostly by Medicare and providing no value at all.
The entire problem with ACA is tha
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Sam wrote:
>
> You wouldn't do that here. :P
>
Wrong. I have done it here. Multiple times.
>
> So in your mind the government is perfect and no cuts anywhere are needed?
>
Putting words in my mouth, as per usual. That is not what I said, merely
your attemp
Think of something like the Neutron bomb that just emitted an EMP...EMP's
destroy electronics and many electrical items.
-Original Message-
From: LRS Scout [mailto:lrssc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 11:22 AM
To: cf-community
Subject: Re: Polls show GOP getting sp
And get in our air space with it that far?
On Oct 23, 2013 12:31 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" wrote:
>
> Not too difficult. In the 50's and 60's both the US and the Soviets
> investigated EMP bombs. For instance:
> http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html
>
> From http://www.futurescience.com/emp.h
for a country like North Korea, this is possible. For a developed country
like Britain or France it would not be too difficult, they already have
equivalent nuclear weapons. For 2nd tier nations like Australia, Poland or
Canada, it would take more effort but the knowledge and delivery systems
are
Not too difficult. In the 50's and 60's both the US and the Soviets
investigated EMP bombs. For instance:
http://www.futurescience.com/emp/test184.html
>From http://www.futurescience.com/emp.html:
The Mark 18 bomb, tested in 1952, was also known as the super or alloy
bomb. It was made of a sphe
If and it would have to be much cheaper than current prices.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> Yes, but once the US and UK research projects for synthetic replacements
> for rare earth metals yield results, then the game changes.
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Larr
An EMP that could cause that much damage?
The nuclear explosion required to create it would be far more harmful.
Defensive anti missle tech would be great, better sensors at ports and
aviation hubs.
Our military is expeditionary I'm mature and we just don't need it all.
On Oct 23, 2013 12:18 PM
I know this is all stuff of television shows, but seriously, what are the
chances of something along the lines of Dark Angel? You know, an
electromagnetic pulse weapon detonated in the atmosphere and wiped out the vast
majority of computer and communication systems. From that you have anarchy,
If
On Oct 23, 2013 12:10 PM, "Bruce Sorge" wrote:
>
> Yes, but once the US and UK research projects for synthetic replacements
> for rare earth metals yield results, then the game changes.
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thing is the world will not let tha
On a nuke level maybe, neither has anything approaching the lift or float
capability to come here in anywhere near the numbers that would be needed
to do anything.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Good point, if we entered in the begging we wouldn't have been ready. But
> in mo
Yes, but once the US and UK research projects for synthetic replacements for
rare earth metals yield results, then the game changes.
On Oct 23, 2013, at 12:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Thing is the world will not let that happen. The US is so interconnected
> now that it cannot be isol
I meant the 18.
The 35 is way over priced for what it does, the joint strike program has
been screwed since day one.
The Navy and Marines both fly 18s as do the Canadians. Lots of parts, way
cheaper, and can kill about anything.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> It
Good point, if we entered in the begging we wouldn't have been ready. But
in modern days we need to at least be able to repel an attack from Russia
and China, just in case.
.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> WII was an actual declared war where we were attacked. We were
So be honest about it's national security value and seize it.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Thing is the world will not let that happen. The US is so interconnected
> now that it cannot be isolationist. You like your smart phone or laptop.
> Aside from the componen
It may be, but its already gaining a hanger queen reputation. And as I
said, if another system that is half the cost and 2/3rds the effectiveness.
Wouldn't it be better to build the alternative system in that case?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:03 PM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> Amazing bird, it really
There's the Postal Service Fund which is $100 million a year and the Post
Office borrowed $16
billion so far from the government. Doesn't matter if it's in the budget,
we have to pay it.
.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> you forget that the Post office is not incl
Thing is the world will not let that happen. The US is so interconnected
now that it cannot be isolationist. You like your smart phone or laptop.
Aside from the components being assembled at FoxConn in China, the rare
earths needed also come from there. The US imports a significant amount of
its e
Amazing bird, it really is.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> The F18E and F series are 2/3rds as capable as the F35C has been advertised
> to be. They cost less than half the cost. They have a very long service
> life. and most importantly any of the possible foes it
WII was an actual declared war where we were attacked. We were also to
spin up and win as needed.
SO yeah...
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> During WWII we tried that for awhile, it's a good thing we eventually
> jumped in.
>
> .
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, L
During WWII we tried that for awhile, it's a good thing we eventually
jumped in.
.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:53 AM, LRS Scout wrote:
>
> An actual department of defense that only worries about America and our
> borders.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> >
> > Wh
The F18E and F series are 2/3rds as capable as the F35C has been advertised
to be. They cost less than half the cost. They have a very long service
life. and most importantly any of the possible foes it would be facing are
still not as capable as current aircraft and probably won't be for a while.
That in itself Tim is a great idea and I am a big fan of it, but since the DOD
is merely a far reaching arm of the political establishment, we cant make
these decisions on our own. I have been a strong advocate of staying out of
others business unless we absolutely have to. Fuck the world and
you forget that the Post office is not included in the budget. It is an
independent entity. You want the post office to save money, how about
removing some of the onerous requirements imposed on it by congress, such
as having to fully fund all pensions that no business is required to do so.
On W
An actual department of defense that only worries about America and our
borders.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> Whats the alternative?
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Question is do we really need to spend more than double the c
Yup.
It's systemic, endemic, we need to go over every line item on the books
with a red pen.
This government has gotten insane.
Did you know something like 50% of employed adults work for government on
some level?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> If you're going af
Whats the alternative?
On Oct 23, 2013, at 11:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Question is do we really need to spend more than double the combination of
> all other nations on defense?
>
> After all do we need the F-35C whose cost is rising to a billion per
> aircraft?
> F-35C: US$199.4M
We need a crash and chaos to fix it.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Vivec wrote:
>
> You need to fund the military industrial complex, and that is why you
> needed the F35.
> How many persons does the defence industry employ, and what would be the
> fallout if those companies had to go back
If you're going after subsidies, how about cutting subsidies to the oil and
gas industries? In 2010 even with very high prices oil and gas companies
still raked in over 400 billion in subsidies.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-21/when-it-comes-to-government-subsidies-dirty-energy-sti
Those things are all for offensive force projection, not defense.
The defense of the homeland could be easily and cheaply handled. We are
geographically isolated east and west and bordered by allies.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> Question is do we really need to
You need to fund the military industrial complex, and that is why you
needed the F35.
How many persons does the defence industry employ, and what would be the
fallout if those companies had to go back to "normal" levels of contracts
and revenue?
But no, I don't think the US needs to outspend the
Question is do we really need to spend more than double the combination of
all other nations on defense?
After all do we need the F-35C whose cost is rising to a billion per
aircraft?
F-35C: US$199.4M flyaway cost, 2013 from Department Of The Navy Fiscal Year
(FY) 2013 Budget Estimates, Aircraft
It just get funnier by the day:
doyougotinsurance.com
People used to take the government seriously.
.
~|
Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now!
http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusi
Hidden in this mess are a couple of good ideas.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Sam wrote:
> How about corn subsidies or most
> farm subsidies for that matter.
Yes! These subsidies have gotten out of hand.
> How about stopping Saturday mail delivery,
>
YES! This should have been done
As with anything you own that has complex moving parts, you cannot just
shut it down and stick it in the corner of the garage and hope it works the
next time you NEED it.
You need to put it away right, in good working order, and make sure it is
ready to start up again next time.
Just parking it
You wouldn't do that here. :P
So in your mind the government is perfect and no cuts anywhere are needed?
Remember Obama was going to use a scalpel and Romney was going to fire Big
Bird? Big Bird got another $400 million during the recent shutdown. How
about $93 - 250 million on that website that
Gen. Ray Odierno told a Washington conference Monday that the U.S. Army had
not conducted any training in the last six months of the fiscal year ending
Sept. 30.
And, he said, there currently are only two Army brigades rated
combat-ready. That's a total of between 7,000 to 10,000 troops and less
On the one hand I completely agree. We need to get back to basics, get back to
training and strengthen our military after 12 years of persistent combat. A
huge reset if you will. However, we cant reduce readiness. We need to be a
strong ready force not so that we can invade another country, bu
Countless billions*
On Oct 23, 2013 8:46 AM, "LRS Scout" wrote:
> You might be surprised to hear that I agree.
>
> Our standing Army is our largest expense, and it is never used "in defense
> of nation". I've listened to all the complaints about how we've had to
> rebuild I'm time's of need, but
You might be surprised to hear that I agree.
Our standing Army is our largest expense, and it is never used "in defense
of nation". I've listened to all the complaints about how we've had to
rebuild I'm time's of need, but really do we need to spend any of these
countries billions?
We are geogra
Maybe it's time we reduced our military, including "readiness". Maybe the
next time a hot spot flares up, we'll be FORCED to leave it alone. I for
one am ready to sit out a few wars.
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 9:17 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> Did you read my message? We are sacrificing training to
Did you read my message? We are sacrificing training to save money. Not
training means units are not ready for combat. Just because Iraq is pretty much
over, and Afghanistan is winding down does not mean there are no more global
threats.
On Oct 22, 2013, at 10:08 PM, Maureen wrote:
>
> Sin
8 over two years, was supposed to be four.
On Oct 22, 2013 10:05 PM, "Bruce Sorge" wrote:
>
> Well I can tell you that the military is being hit hard for spending cuts.
>
> First of all, General Odierno recently said that there are only two
> Brigade Combat Teams that are ready for comba
Since the wars are winding down, why would the military spending not be
reduced?
On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 7:05 PM, Bruce Sorge wrote:
>
> Well I can tell you that the military is being hit hard for spending cuts.
>
~|
Order t
Well I can tell you that the military is being hit hard for spending cuts.
First of all, General Odierno recently said that there are only two Brigade
Combat Teams that are ready for combat. Two out of the 43 we currently have.
This is due to sequestration, which means that the DOD has to mak
Each time someone rails about spending cuts, I send them a link to the
budget page, and ask them exactly what they want to cut. I have yet to get
a response that recommends any specific cuts - just a lot of sound and fury
about whatever the latest media buzzword is.
The average voter is massivel
Brit Hume explains the Tea-Party
http://www.caintv.com/awesome-video-brit-hume-explai
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> just ribbing you Judah.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course not. She's a lovely dancer and has a Mas
just ribbing you Judah.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> Of course not. She's a lovely dancer and has a Masters degree in
> philosophy. Fun person to hang out with :)
>
> Cheers,
> Judah
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons >wrote:
>
> >
> > you sure
Sounds like my kinda girl.
On Oct 21, 2013 5:26 PM, "Judah McAuley" wrote:
>
> Of course not. She's a lovely dancer and has a Masters degree in
> philosophy. Fun person to hang out with :)
>
> Cheers,
> Judah
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons >wrote:
>
> >
> > you sure that'
I love you guys
On Oct 21, 2013 4:22 PM, "Jerry Milo Johnson" wrote:
>
> See, people like you are the problem with this economy.
>
> I bet those hookers are NOT paying proper taxes, but ARE probably using the
> healthcare system (fortunately, Obamacare will help fix that). And did you
> check th
Seriously.
On Oct 21, 2013 4:10 PM, "Judah McAuley" wrote:
>
> I think that $600 for hookers and blow is a pretty minimal budget.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> >
> > Good stuff.
> >
> > I guess the reason I originally asked the question is because i hear
> often
> >
Of course not. She's a lovely dancer and has a Masters degree in
philosophy. Fun person to hang out with :)
Cheers,
Judah
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> you sure that's the ONLY reason?
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Judah McAuley
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I was t
you sure that's the ONLY reason?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I was talking with a stripper a couple weeks ago and explaining some things
> about the insurance exchanges and the ACA. She was worried about having to
> pay a penalty as a young, fairly healthy person
I was talking with a stripper a couple weeks ago and explaining some things
about the insurance exchanges and the ACA. She was worried about having to
pay a penalty as a young, fairly healthy person who makes most of her money
under the table. I made a strong argument for declaring her income and
See, people like you are the problem with this economy.
I bet those hookers are NOT paying proper taxes, but ARE probably using the
healthcare system (fortunately, Obamacare will help fix that). And did you
check their immigration status?
But, the cocaine...there is no excuse for that. Offshorin
Obama is the first president to spend more than all the other presidents
combined.
Just think, Bush had 9/11 and two wars and still spent a $trillion a year
less than Obama and Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet.
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:48 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Good stuff.
>
> I guess t
Come on, that's BS. The surplus in 2001 was a huge projection, it wasn't
real, the economy already tanked from the dotcom bubble popping. To say we
weren't in line with a guess of what the economy would be is just politics.
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-v-bush-on-spending-debt-and-growth-
Maybe on the coast, but here in the midwest, $600 will buy you a lot of
snow and angels.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
>
> I think that $600 for hookers and blow is a pretty minimal budget.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> >
> > Good stuff.
I think that $600 for hookers and blow is a pretty minimal budget.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:48 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Good stuff.
>
> I guess the reason I originally asked the question is because i hear often
> from conservatives that "spending is out of control", as if this were a
> recent,
Good stuff.
I guess the reason I originally asked the question is because i hear often
from conservatives that "spending is out of control", as if this were a
recent, Obama-created actuality. No doubt Obama wants to spend, but he's
hardly the first 21st century prez to do so.
Few things are mor
Here are some figures from the CBO, if you like. This particular write up
looks at 2002 to 2011. Every year, the CBO makes a 10-year forecast,
looking and what things should look like under current policy/conditions,
if those persisted.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41463
"In January 2001, CBO
I guess i'm looking for spending figures. You do understand that a
"deficit" has two factors, right, only one of which is spending?
I don't know how Obama's spending compares to Bush's (which is why i
asked), but I do know that Bush spent a LOT more than most conservatives
were comfortable with.
I am sure you have a source for the 'four times more' statement?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Bush spent money, Obama spends four times more. Why don't you just tell me
> what answer your looking for so I can just get on with correcting you?
>
> .
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at
Bush spent money, Obama spends four times more. Why don't you just tell me
what answer your looking for so I can just get on with correcting you?
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> Those are deficits, i asked about spending.
>
> Has Obama spent significantly more in his years
Those are deficits, i asked about spending.
Has Obama spent significantly more in his years in office, compared to Bush?
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> About a $trillion a year less
> Obama Deficits
> 12: $1,087 billion
> 11: $1,300 billion
> 10: $1,294 billion
> Bush Deficits
And yet again Keynes is proven wrong. We've been printing and pumping for
four years and nothing to show except an extra $trillion a year in debt.
What's that about do the same thing over and over again while expecting
different results?
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Judah McAuley wrote:
About a $trillion a year less
Obama Deficits
12: $1,087 billion
11: $1,300 billion
10: $1,294 billion
Bush Deficits
09â : $1,413 billion
08: $458 billion
07: $161 billion
06: $248 billion
05: $318 billion
â Almost $1 trillion was paid back by the banks and Auto industry
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 20
Keynes had it pretty straight forward. When times are rough, run a deficit
and increase government spending to stimulate the economy because
government is one of the few things of the size and means to do so. Then
when the economy is growing and revenues increase, pay down the debt and
then scale
I think it was the Democrats the REFUSED to negotiate.
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> And btw you need to add an additional 26 billion on that - for th eocst of
> the GOP forced federal government shutdown.
>
> That waste of money is directly attributable to the r
You charts don't support your comments
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote:
>
> what insane spending binge? Government spending is at the lowest level in
> years, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sam wrote
They spent the time trying to pass bills to ban Abortion, same sex
marriages, and to repeal obamacare instead.
I actually hope they do lose, it seems we will all be a lot more stable as
a result.
On 21 October 2013 13:39, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> But no, they don't do that. Instead, they
I know i'm independent.
Also, the last Republican presidential regime we hadhow was their
spending???
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> You still think you're independent?
>
> It's there job to shut down the government if they can't pay the bills,
> that's supposed to get t
And btw you need to add an additional 26 billion on that - for th eocst of
the GOP forced federal government shutdown.
That waste of money is directly attributable to the republican party and
the teahadi wing.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Really? Trying to reign in this ins
what insane spending binge? Government spending is at the lowest level in
years, http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_spending_chart
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Really? Trying to reign in this insane spending binge the Dems are on is
> considered out-of-touch?
>
>
they'll forget as soon as another episode of Honey Boo-Boo is on.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Scott Stroz wrote:
>
> The results were also based off of a 'generic' Democrat, rather than a
> specific candidate, that, coupled with how easily the US electorate tends
> to forget shit fairly q
So you agree the Democrats have a spending problem yet you still blame
Republicans?
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote:
>
> Actually, the problems is, although they keep talking about reigning in the
> spending, I don't see a lot of reigning going on.
>
> They should b
You still think you're independent?
It's there job to shut down the government if they can't pay the bills,
that's supposed to get them to negotiate and make cuts. People are too
simple these days to even care that we're $16 trillion in debt.
Here's a nice (hit) piece on Obamacare:
http://www.am
Actually, the problems is, although they keep talking about reigning in the
spending, I don't see a lot of reigning going on.
They should be passing small bills EVERY FRIGGING DAY to reign in
individual spending items across the board.
Pick some horrible low hanging fruit. There is plenty there
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Sam wrote:
>
> Really? Trying to reign in this insane spending binge the Dems are on is
> considered out-of-touch?
>
> Times they are a changing.
>
I'm an independent who dislikes ObamaCare. If you can't appeal to me, you
are fucked.
Reign in the spending. Yes
Really? Trying to reign in this insane spending binge the Dems are on is
considered out-of-touch?
Times they are a changing.
.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:17 PM, GMoney wrote:
>
> I told any Republican who would listen that they were about to get ass
> fucked by the Tea Partysome listened,
The results were also based off of a 'generic' Democrat, rather than a
specific candidate, that, coupled with how easily the US electorate tends
to forget shit fairly quickly, means this poll is fairly useless except to
serve as fodder from the more left leaning news outlets.
On Mon, Oct 21, 201
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/democrats-take-back-house_n_4133836.html
"The results of the latest survey show that incumbent Republicans in 15 of
the 25 districts polled trail generic Democratic candidates. When combined
with the results of the previous surveys, the polls show that gen
91 matches
Mail list logo
