In article ,
wrote:

but we have quite a bit of disposable income. we go out to eat, I buy
stuff on ebay
all the time, etc. we would just stop buying anything EXCEPT
necessities. I mean it
would only be for 4 years. I think I got enough fur coats, boots, etc
to last that
long. Got enough furniture. The problem as I see it is that the very
wealthiest
people and companies are buying more and more of our elections every
year. I think
if a significant number of people just stopped buying everything but the
necessities
for a while it may put a dent in the amount of money they can dump on "their"
candidates. OTOH, maybe I should just take all my disposable income and
only buy
stuff made by Democrats.
the whole reimportation from Canada is bullshit. production of many if
not most
drugs is out sourced to other countries already, that is why we are
coming up short
on flu vaccine.
I find it unbelievable that W insist he is protecting Americans from
sub-standard
drugs from Canada and then in the next breath says we are working with
Canadians to
get flu vaccine from them.
INgrid

If you go four years as a minimalist consumer you may find you're
healthier & prefer living without the clutter, so will continue the habit
for life. There's much to be said for minimal consumerism because
Americans tend to use up the world's resources hundreds of times faster
than in many other countries, & we have very little to show for it beyond
exposure to more carcinogens, fat asses, & an accumulation of pricy junk
we scarsely even look at a second time.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

Ingrid, it's a deal. I promise to really put my mind to it. No buying outside
of necessities. I can't promise four years, but I can promise one month at a
time. More feasible for me that way. I know you're right, but it's not as easy
as it sounds. If I never bought another thing outside of necessities I have way
more than I ever thought I'd have, so it's not really a big stretch to not buy
things. I'm also making my own clothes, lately.

V


On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:45:53 GMT, opined:

but we have quite a bit of disposable income. we go out to eat, I buy stuff on ebay
all the time, etc. we would just stop buying anything EXCEPT necessities. I mean it
would only be for 4 years. I think I got enough fur coats, boots, etc to last that
long. Got enough furniture. The problem as I see it is that the very wealthiest
people and companies are buying more and more of our elections every year. I think
if a significant number of people just stopped buying everything but the necessities
for a while it may put a dent in the amount of money they can dump on "their"
candidates. OTOH, maybe I should just take all my disposable income and only buy
stuff made by Democrats.
the whole reimportation from Canada is bullshit. production of many if not most
drugs is out sourced to other countries already, that is why we are coming up short
on flu vaccine.
I find it unbelievable that W insist he is protecting Americans from sub-standard
drugs from Canada and then in the next breath says we are working with Canadians to
get flu vaccine from them.
INgrid

escapee wrote:

Good idea, but not practical. In a perfect world I'd grow all my own food, only
eat in season, never take a drug for anything, live in the boondocks. In the
real world, I shop at the grocery store, take medication when needed, grow what
I can.

I am pretty ****ed off about the whole prescription drug thing with Canada. Why
is it WE can make the drugs, export them out to Canada, but they can't import
them back because they could be sub-standard? Are we selling sub-standard drugs
to Canada?




On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:50:14 GMT, opined:

I have already decided that if Kerry doesnt win I am going to stop spending any money
for anything except absolute necessities. I am going to keep my money under the
cushions, not in the bank. I will encourage everyone in this country to simply go on
strike against the wealthy corporations who have bought the politicians. Ingrid

escapee wrote:
I had the same thought the other day of voting straight party democrat. I
fluctuate between Bush is going to win and our country will suffer circumstances
we'll never recover from; to Kerry will win in a landslide because of all the
new voters, young voters, etc, who are probably not counted in these idiotic
polls.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.






Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.






Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

In article says...
The whole shit stinks. The Catholic is passing out booklets telling their
parishioners how to vote according to Christ.

Actually this is illegal. According to their non-profit, tax exempt
status, the Catholic church or any church can't campaign for any
candidate.

--
Nixon hated running for president during football season, but he did
it anyway. Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised
everything he stood for -- but if he were running for president this
year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him.
-- Hunter S. Thompson http://tinyurl.com/3smr2

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:46:17 -0500, Mark Anderson
opined:

In article says...
The whole shit stinks. The Catholic is passing out booklets telling their
parishioners how to vote according to Christ.

Actually this is illegal. According to their non-profit, tax exempt
status, the Catholic church or any church can't campaign for any
candidate.

They do it in a sneaky way. They list out several things which a Catholic must
consider when voting. Abortion, for example. They tell the parishioners they
must not vote for anyone who is pro-choice. That is one I can think of. There
are others which guilt them into not thinking for themselves and people who are
ignorant, like my mother in law, will follow into the fire.

I'm off to vote for the man who will sign off on stem cell research, and
pro-choice. I'm voting for the man who will consider the world view when acting
in an International way. I'm voting for the better of the two. I AM of the
belief "anybody but bush," but I also truly think Kerry will make a better
president.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Why do you want a traitor for President?? If the Swifty's are lying about
Kerry why doesn't he take them to court and sue them for slander and
defamation of character?? I'm sure the Swifty's would love to get him in
court and have him prove that they are telling lies about him.


"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:46:17 -0500, Mark Anderson

opined:

In article says...
The whole shit stinks. The Catholic is passing out booklets telling
their
parishioners how to vote according to Christ.

Actually this is illegal. According to their non-profit, tax exempt
status, the Catholic church or any church can't campaign for any
candidate.

They do it in a sneaky way. They list out several things which a Catholic
must
consider when voting. Abortion, for example. They tell the parishioners
they
must not vote for anyone who is pro-choice. That is one I can think of.
There
are others which guilt them into not thinking for themselves and people
who are
ignorant, like my mother in law, will follow into the fire.

I'm off to vote for the man who will sign off on stem cell research, and
pro-choice. I'm voting for the man who will consider the world view when
acting
in an International way. I'm voting for the better of the two. I AM of
the
belief "anybody but bush," but I also truly think Kerry will make a better
president.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"Mark Anderson" wrote in message
.net...
In article says...
The whole shit stinks. The Catholic is passing out booklets telling
their
parishioners how to vote according to Christ.

Actually this is illegal. According to their non-profit, tax exempt
status, the Catholic church or any church can't campaign for any
candidate.


That may be the law, but no one follows it. Just look at how black churches
support and campaign for Democrats.

Tom wrote:
Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will
lose if he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to
court after he looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll
need the money after Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he
will find another sugarmommy, because all the rich ones will be wise
to him.


"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
. com...

Even if Kerry does take the lying *******s to court, it will take
month before it goes to trial. That is long after the election. The
lying cowards are well aware of that and are taking advantage of
it. Kerry's war record is still far better than that awol coward
Dubya.



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:06 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will lose if
he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to court after he
looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll need the money after
Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he will find another sugarmommy,
because all the rich ones will be wise to him.


Tom your ignorant ****, perhaps your tin hat is to tight?

Swifties are stone cold liars. Do a little reading in depth, that
means beyond the headlines or bar room one liners.

Don't be so hard on uncle Tom. He's still reeling from getting gang porked
by Republican rednecks and squeeling like a pig during happy hour last
night. After four years of abuse, he's gotten used to it!!!!

The fascist swifties are relatively nice to him because they only demand
oral from him. The only balls he has are in his mouth.

He's afraid if Kerry gets elected, he won't be getting any abuse anymore and
he might miss it.


"hippy gardener" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:06 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will lose
if
he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to court after he
looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll need the money after
Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he will find another
sugarmommy,
because all the rich ones will be wise to him.


Tom your ignorant ****, perhaps your tin hat is to tight?

Swifties are stone cold liars. Do a little reading in depth, that
means beyond the headlines or bar room one liners.

Why don't you two grab ahold of your left ears with your right hand and pull
your heads out of your asses!

"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
om...
Don't be so hard on uncle Tom. He's still reeling from getting gang porked
by Republican rednecks and squeeling like a pig during happy hour last
night. After four years of abuse, he's gotten used to it!!!!

The fascist swifties are relatively nice to him because they only demand
oral from him. The only balls he has are in his mouth.

He's afraid if Kerry gets elected, he won't be getting any abuse anymore
and
he might miss it.


"hippy gardener" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:06 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will
lose
if
he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to court after
he
looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll need the money
after
Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he will find another
sugarmommy,
because all the rich ones will be wise to him.


Tom your ignorant ****, perhaps your tin hat is to tight?

Swifties are stone cold liars. Do a little reading in depth, that
means beyond the headlines or bar room one liners.

Calm down uncle Tom. We know you are still sore from that daily reaming you
like to get from the republican party. So you do admit that you like getting
GOP head up your butt, eh? At least you have a full time job, eh?

Too bad we homeys don't play that rough rider stuff you political masochists
like so much.


"Tom" wrote in message
news:h8Aed.448004$Fg5.119305@attbi_s53...
Why don't you two grab ahold of your left ears with your right hand and
pull
your heads out of your asses!

"Cereus-validus." wrote in message
om...
Don't be so hard on uncle Tom. He's still reeling from getting gang
porked
by Republican rednecks and squeeling like a pig during happy hour last
night. After four years of abuse, he's gotten used to it!!!!

The fascist swifties are relatively nice to him because they only demand
oral from him. The only balls he has are in his mouth.

He's afraid if Kerry gets elected, he won't be getting any abuse anymore
and
he might miss it.


"hippy gardener" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 17:51:06 GMT, "Tom" wrote:

Kerry doesn't have the balls to take them to court. He knows he will
lose
if
he does. He has all the time in the world to take them to court
after
he
looses the election. If he thinks he will win he'll need the money
after
Teresa kicks him in the ass. I doubt that he will find another
sugarmommy,
because all the rich ones will be wise to him.


Tom your ignorant ****, perhaps your tin hat is to tight?

Swifties are stone cold liars. Do a little reading in depth, that
means beyond the headlines or bar room one liners.

A traitor? Why, because he spoke out against the men who were in the war doing
their crimes to humanity? What was he a traitor on? I'd prefer him to a man who
never made anything work unless his father bought the win. The Bush family goes
back many years, many of those full of lies, deceit and tons of money changing
hands. Bush was AWOL. Not one person has come forward to say they served with
him during the time he was AWOL on the campaign trail for daddy.

I give no time to who you call "the Swifty's." Maybe you are not up to date on
your information, but they were proven wrong a while ago.



On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:30:03 GMT, "Tom" opined:

Why do you want a traitor for President?? If the Swifty's are lying about
Kerry why doesn't he take them to court and sue them for slander and
defamation of character?? I'm sure the Swifty's would love to get him in
court and have him prove that they are telling lies about him.


"escapee" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:46:17 -0500, Mark Anderson

opined:

In article says...
The whole shit stinks. The Catholic is passing out booklets telling
their
parishioners how to vote according to Christ.

Actually this is illegal. According to their non-profit, tax exempt
status, the Catholic church or any church can't campaign for any
candidate.

They do it in a sneaky way. They list out several things which a Catholic
must
consider when voting. Abortion, for example. They tell the parishioners
they
must not vote for anyone who is pro-choice. That is one I can think of.
There
are others which guilt them into not thinking for themselves and people
who are
ignorant, like my mother in law, will follow into the fire.

I'm off to vote for the man who will sign off on stem cell research, and
pro-choice. I'm voting for the man who will consider the world view when
acting
in an International way. I'm voting for the better of the two. I AM of
the
belief "anybody but bush," but I also truly think Kerry will make a better
president.





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html







Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob

Based on what?





Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

escapee wrote:
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:27:20 -0500, zxcvbob opined:



If Kerry sues the SwiftBoatVets, or anyone else for that matter,
regarding his Vietnam war service, his military records will be
subpoenaed and everyone will see his discharge papers from the early
70's, not just the version that was reviewed and reissued in 1978 by
order of President Carter. I suspect he *really* wants to keep those
original papers buried.

Kerry never should have made his military service the centerpiece of his
campaign, because that makes it an issue for close scrutiny. If he had
kept his mouth shut about it, everyone already knew his military service
(on the surface anyway) was better than Bush and Chaney. I doubt his
service record stands up to close scrutiny.

Best regards,
Bob


Based on what?


A few months ago, an old college buddy of mine who is a retired Air
Force officer was badmouthing Kerry for protesting the Vietnam War. I
told him that whatever else I thought of Kerry, I believed he had earned
the right to protest the war. (that kind of ****ed him off) Recently,
he sent me a bunch of information that suggests that Kerry may have
originally received a dishonorable discharge. I've looked up some of
the info myself, and I think the dishonorable discharge thing is
plausible but the evidence is *very* stretchy. However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1,
1970. http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but
sets the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his
original separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have
been no need for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr.
Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an
honorable discharge.

We'll never know unless Kerry sues the SBV's for libel (and they
subpoena the records), because Kerry will not release his full military
records.

Best regards,
Bob

"zxcvbob" wrote in message
...
escapee wrote:
... However I do believe it
presents a strong case that he did not receive an honorable discharge:

From JohnKerry.com, his separation from Active Duty was on March 1, 1970.
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_..._timeline.html

Now notice the date [Feb 16, 1978] on this document:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...om_Reserve.pdf

This was right after President Carter granted amnesty to "draft dodgers"
(a little background info that doesn't directly affect this case but sets
the atmosphere.)

Now the phrases "by direction of the President" [Carter] and "board
officers convened under authority of reference to examine the official
records...", and "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163".

Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163 refers to the grounds for
involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then,
was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. If his original
separation had been an honorable discharge, there would have been no need
for a review. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of
discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.


You are just wrong.

Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Navel Reserve
(inactive status) in 1970. In 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve
(inactive) and in 1978 was honorably discharged from the Naval Reserve.
Check it out:
http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilse...of_Service.pdf

Karen