The Drive-a-Toyota Act

Thanks for your interpretations. Place your bets.

 

Opinion without proof equals opinion. Place your bets. What was it
McDougal was jailed for again? Refusing to lie? Where's a Special
Prosecutor when we *need* one.

 

My bet is on economic expansion through less government and lower tax rates, no matter what
party may be in charge.. It's not a US phenomenon either, Japan's economy was plummeted into
a tailspin when they rose tax rates a number of years back, and Russia discoovered that their
economy boomed (and they collected more taxes) after they reduced their income tax rates
arouond 5-7 years ago, despite the international "experts" that told them to do the
opposite.

 

"Refusing to lie?" Hardly. The judge was clear. All she had to do was answer the
questions, the same as anyone else under the justice system.. By the way, she was
also convicted of numerous fraud and conspiracy counts on the same case. How
convenient that Clinton pardoned her after she fell on the sword for him. But with
bodies dropping all over in that case, perhaps it was self preservation.

 

The reason Susam McDougal wouldn't talk is because they want her to lie
before Kenneth Starr's grand jury. If she tells the truth then her
testomony will conflict with the testomony of other witnesses that Starr
has coerced into lying. Because of the conflicting testomony, if Susan
McDougal tellshe truth, Starr will prosecute her for Perjury. They can
do that in a grand jury.

However, the rules aren't the same in open court. Susan McDougal could
have told the truth in front of a judge without fear of perjury. And she
offered to do so. But Starr wouldn't allow that because he isn't
interested in the truth. Starr was only interested in getting Clinton.

 

My bet is the rich (who got all the tax breaks) will *continue* to sit
on the money and within a couple of decades there will be no more middle
class. Plenty of war, though, for friends of Bush. Had a look at Wall
Street this week?

Do you believe history repeats? Here's some interesting stuff I
stumbled across while cleaning my garage from a book entitled "My Four
Years in Germany" (1917) written by a former Ambassador to Germany,
James W. Gerard.

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/watson.htm

"The war against Denmark in 1864, against Austria, Bavaria, etc., in
1866 and against France in 1870 enormously increased both the pride and
prestige of the Prussian army."

"The nobles of Prussia are always for war. The businessmen and
manufacturers and ship owners desire an increasing field for their
activities. The German colonies were uninhabitable by Europeans. All
his life the glittering Emperor and his generals had planned and thought
of war; and the Crown Prince, surrounded by his remarkable collection of
relics and reminders of Napoleon, dreamed only of taking the lead in a
successful war of conquest. Early in the winter of 1913-14, the Crown
Prince showed his collection of Napoleana to a beautiful American woman
of my acquaintance, and said that he hoped war would occur while his
father was alive, but, if not, he would start a war the moment he came
to the throne."

And from page 79 this jewel of familiarity:

"The fact the Socialists, at the close of the session of the Reichstag,
boldly remained in the Chamber and refused to rise or to cheer the name
of the Emperor indicated a new spirit of resistance to autocracy; and
autocracy saw that if it was to keep its hold upon Germany it must lead
the nation into a short and successful war."

"This is no new trick of a ruling and aristocratic class. From the days
when the patricians of Rome forced the people into war whenever the
people showed a disposition to demand their rights, autocracies have
always turned to war as the best antidote against the spirit of
democracy." [end quotes]

 

Now that is totally unfair, Greg! Using facts. LOL!

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

There you go again, Greg - using facts.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

This cliche was banned, for overuse, from all of the alt newsgroups
on Jan 13, 2002. You are hereby killfiled, for 28 days, for lack of
imagination.

cordially, as always,

rm

 

LOL! I knew about the "Hitler" rule, but not about this "using facts"
thing.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

 

"Please explain how you came (bizzarely) to introduce another candidate
into the discussion, as you were unable to point to anything said there
that was relevant to your comments. Thanks."

 

The convict, Susan McDougal, was found in contempt of court by a judge for refusing to
testify, not for "refusing to lie." All she had to do was to tell the truth!

 

Tax reductions went to *everyone* paying taxes, and also to people who now do not have to pay any
taxes thanks to higher exclusion rates for the bottom income levels, including the "earned income
credit." By the way, tax receipts have also increased. Your comment, "sit on the money," does not
make any sense either, and indicates you think that wealth somehow just moves around magically,
instead of being created in an economy.

You didn't make any connections, just rambling unconnected sentences.

 

You were very interested in cocaine and its use. Rather than your just
bumbling around talking about non-cocaine use through absurd allegations, I
introduced someone who actually *did* use cocaine, to help you understand
the difference.

I'm still waiting for your answers to my question.

 

Check the subject line of this thread, check the NG it's posted in, and
check who actually introduced the issue of which candidates' sons did
and did not, or would or would not, have expunged criminal records.

Your question? Hold your breath, and wait until Hell freezes over.

 

If you can do all that, how did you get to weird and absurd claims about Bush
using cocaine, exactly?
My questions were posed directly at you. To help refresh your memory, you wrote,
"O'Really, Havenotty, Limpdick, or Ann Bee-atch Coulter [sic] define the concept
of "unfounded wild accusations". My question is: Where is this defined,
exactly? Can you please explain? How did you get to these names, since you
introduced them without any substance? How did you get to "Faux News [sic]" in
your response?

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you can't come up with an answer to explain what you
claimed. Thanks for the chuckles!

 

Completely transparent you can't (or more exactly, refuse to) read.

Roll on the floor and laugh that one off, asshole.

 

I read just fine, but thank you. You are unable to explain what you wrote, to wit,
your weird remarks about 'faux news' [sic], calling names, and your bizarre cocaine
allegations. My questions were posed directly at you. To help refresh your memory,
you wrote,
"O'Really, Havenotty, Limpdick, or Ann Bee-atch Coulter [sic] define the concept of
"unfounded wild accusations". My question is: Where is this defined, exactly? Can
you please explain? How did you get to these names, since you introduced them
without any substance? How did you get to "Faux News [sic]" in your response?

Needing to resort to juvenile profanity further marginalizes yourself even further.

 

So you think.

Your lack of comprehension speaks for itself.


You are unable to explain what you wrote, to wit,

Go back and find who introduced this to the thread, how, and try to
figure out why that might have been. Or not, suit yourself.

If you prefer the use of another term, be my guest.

It'll be that term most appropriately responsive to the overuse of
smiley faces and "nyah, nyah" responses. I can think of several.

 

Comprehension? *You* couldn't explain your comments about what *you* wrote!

Sure, you did, at 05 Aug 2007 10:15:42 -0400

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.chrysler/msg/78a11e4d4ff4a30e?dmode=source

You were unable to explain how you got to this.

While you're "thinking," how about thinking up a reason why you started talking about
"O'Really, Havenotty, Limpdick, or Ann Bee-atch Coulter [sic]," and why you brought up
ridiculous unfounded charges of cocaine use?