On 5/22/2011 9:11 AM, RHF wrote:
On May 22, 8:32 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:49 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:









Peter Franks
On 5/19/2011 4:18 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:Yoorghis
On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:47:01 -0700, John Smith

A flat tax on every taxable dollar ... end of story ... end of
complexities ...

That way huge companies will forever pay less money compared to their
profit

Are you interested in collecting enough money to run the legitimate
functions of government, or in taking money from people you don't like?

I'll speak on his behalf: the latter.

Why SHOULDN'T things be taken from you in the name of the Common Good?

- Because I worked for it.
- Now, why SHOULD things be taken from me
- in the name of the Common Good?

-answer- "The Common Good"

The so-called "common good" destroys the individual, and in the process,
destroys the "common good". Therefore, there is NO common good.

Peter Franks
On 5/22/2011 9:11 AM, RHF wrote:
On May 22, 8:32 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:49 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:

Why SHOULDN'T things be taken from you in the name of the Common
Good?

- Because I worked for it.
- Now, why SHOULD things be taken from me
- in the name of the Common Good?

-answer- "The Common Good"

The so-called "common good" destroys the individual, and in the process,
destroys the "common good". Therefore, there is NO common good.




BILL CLINTON disagrees...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNpgH6jrUs
on the Common Good...

(Who could argue with His Emminent Monsterdom?)



Screw 'em, You don't owe them a thing, Bill.
-- Hillary'95.


The same reasoning went into that, that freed FALN terrorists who
murdered American Citizens after 130 bombings over a decade.



http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/do..._faln_rpt2.htm
"[y]ou are lucky that we cannot take you right now. Our people will
continue to use righteous violence. Revolutionary justice can be fierce,
mark my words." Ricardo JimJnez shouted at the judge, "[w]e’re going to
fight . . . revolutionary justice will take care of you and everybody
else." Dylcia Pagn warned the judge and courtroom, "[a]ll of you,
I would advise you to watch your backs."


Got TERROR? Thank Clinton !
This is Clinton's Bridge to the 21st Century.
NEITHER Clinton cares anything BUT themselves and POWER.


"I'm just trying to organize this process and drive it faster"
-- Bill Clinton'09


"We have a simpler, clearer path to the future
than we did when I was there"
Bill Clinton'09



I believe in evil and I think that there
are evil people in the world.
-- Hillary'93


"Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections
since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997)......
In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds
to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world
I can say that about, certainly not my own.”
-- Bill Clinton'05

---
LIBs plead for a Morality which holds COMPROMISE as its standard of
Value, making it possible to judge Virtue on the basis of the number of
Values which one is willing to Betray.

On 5/23/2011 8:38 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:
Peter Franks
On 5/22/2011 9:11 AM, RHF wrote:
On May 22, 8:32 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:49 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:

Why SHOULDN'T things be taken from you in the name of the Common
Good?

- Because I worked for it.
- Now, why SHOULD things be taken from me
- in the name of the Common Good?

-answer- "The Common Good"

The so-called "common good" destroys the individual, and in the process,
destroys the "common good". Therefore, there is NO common good.

BILL CLINTON disagrees...

He's not an authority on the subject.

Peter Franks
On 5/23/2011 8:38 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:
Peter Franks
On 5/22/2011 9:11 AM, RHF wrote:
On May 22, 8:32 am, Peter Franks wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:49 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:

Why SHOULDN'T things be taken from you in the name of the Common
Good?

- Because I worked for it.
- Now, why SHOULD things be taken from me
- in the name of the Common Good?

-answer- "The Common Good"

The so-called "common good" destroys the individual, and in the
process,
destroys the "common good". Therefore, there is NO common good.

BILL CLINTON disagrees...

He's not an authority on the subject.


To Legions of the unwashed LIBs he is their Politico, their Fuhrer.
They LUST for the simpler times when you could fake reality just
like he faked the character of a Man; were he to return
to Office, they would SIMPLY be besides themselves.


The world is the way it is
Precisely-Because of Bill Clinton
that makes him an authority deFacto.


http://blogs.forbes.com/henrymiller/...ived-to-fight-
another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/

Bin Laden Lived To Fight Another Day–Thanks To Bill Clinton


When President Barack Obama made the historic announcement in the White
House East Room about the killing of Osama bin Laden, the air was thick
with irony. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was there, and her
husband’s notorious narcissism and cavalier attitude about governance
had allowed bin Laden to escape–in 1998, three years before the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

In his stunning 2003 book Dereliction of Duty, Air Force Lt. Col.
Robert “Buzz” Patterson, a presidential aide and carrier of the
“nuclear football,” describes President Clinton’s gross
irresponsibility toward national security. Patterson tells how, in the
fall of 1998, the watch officer in the White House Situation Room
notified the president’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, that
they had located bin Laden and had “a two-hour window to strike.”

Here is Patterson’s chilling account:

Berger ambled down the stairwell and entered the Sit[uation] Room. He
picked up the phone at one of the busy controller consoles and called
the president. Amazingly, President Clinton was not available. Berger
tried again and again. Bin Laden was within striking distance. The
window of opportunity was closing fast. The plan of attack was set and
the Tomahawk [missile] crews were ready. For about an hour Berger
couldn’t get the commander in chief on the line. Though the president
was always accompanied by military aides and the Secret Service, he
was somehow unavailable. Berger stalked the Sit Room, anxious and
impatient.

Patterson continues:

Finally, the president accepted Berger’s call. There was discussion,
there were pauses – and no decision. The president wanted to talk with
his secretaries of Defense and State. He wanted to study the issue
further. Berger was forced to wait. The clock was ticking. The
president eventually called back. He was still indecisive. He wanted
more discussion. Berger alternated between phone calls and watching
the clock.

The dithering continued until it was too late–and bin Laden lived to
fight another day. And to plot the Sept. 11 attacks.

That was not an isolated incident. On Sept. 13, 1996, while on the
golf course with his lawyer friend Vernon Jordan, President Clinton
had refused to take repeated urgent phone calls from Berger, who
needed the president’s approval for air strikes on Iraq. Patterson
wrote: “Pilots were in the cockpits, waiting to launch, targets were
identified, everything was in place, all [Berger] needed was the
go-ahead.”

He never got it. The protective cover of night lifted, and the mission
was aborted.

There were other examples of gross and inexcusable incompetence.
President Clinton twice managed to lose the nuclear codes that were
necessary to activate the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

There is yet another Clinton irony in view of the relentless tracking
and eventual killing of bin Laden by the U.S. military and
intelligence agencies in a brilliantly executed operation. Patterson
relates an incident that occurred during the Clinton administration’s
very first week that typified its view of the military. Army Lt. Gen.
Barry McCaffrey, the assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
greeted a young aide in a White House hallway with a cheery, “Good
Morning.”

The young aide replied, “I don’t talk to the military.” I consider
that to be a firing offense for a White House pipsqueak.

Speaking of the military and also of Bill Clinton’s predilections,
Patterson describes a sordid incident in which the president–the
commander-in-chief–groped a female steward on Air Force One. As an
enlisted member of the U.S. Air Force, she opted not to make an issue
of it and settled for a personal apology from the president.

This incident troubled Patterson: “I brooded over the fact that if our
commander in chief had been actually serving in the armed services, he
would have been jailed. His immunity struck me as completely
unacceptable.”

Another irony: Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, who would certainly have
known about this sorry state of affairs, was none other than Leon
Panetta, currently the head of the CIA and the nominee to succeed
Robert Gates as secretary of Defense. Panetta was also in the room
when Obama made the bin Laden announcement. (During Panetta’s
forthcoming confirmation hearings, I hope the senators probe his role
in suppressing the various “bimbo eruptions,” as the
molester-in-chief’s sexual dalliances were known during the Clinton
presidency. As they say in court, it goes to character.)

Just as we will never forget Sept. 11, we should not forget the
dereliction of duty by President Clinton and those who were his
enablers.


LIBs. What price their Vision?
---
DEMAND COMPETANCE.
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY.
DEFEAT LIB STRATEGIC INSANITY.


"to leave now we would send a message to terrorists
and other potential adversaries around the world that
they can change our policies by killing our people.
It would be open season on Americans."
-- Bill Clinton '93
just before he pulled out of Somalia


http://www.libertylive.org/Uploads/T...ebt%20Star.jpg

DEBTSTAR:: This is NOT the HOPE you have been Searching for.

In article , says...
On 5/22/2011 9:11 AM, RHF wrote:
On May 22, 8:32 am, Peter wrote:
On 5/19/2011 10:49 PM, MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE wrote:









Peter Franks
On 5/19/2011 4:18 PM, Bert Hyman wrote:
In news:Yoorghis
On Thu, 19 May 2011 10:47:01 -0700, John Smith

A flat tax on every taxable dollar ... end of story ... end of
complexities ...

That way huge companies will forever pay less money compared to their
profit

Are you interested in collecting enough money to run the legitimate
functions of government, or in taking money from people you don't like?

I'll speak on his behalf: the latter.

Why SHOULDN'T things be taken from you in the name of the Common Good?

- Because I worked for it.
- Now, why SHOULD things be taken from me
- in the name of the Common Good?

-answer- "The Common Good"

The so-called "common good" destroys the individual, and in the process,
destroys the "common good". Therefore, there is NO common good.

They don't ever seem to get that, do they?
Name one communist country that actually works.
The only one that didn't become a **** hold right off the bat was Cuba,
and that was because they were getting so much cash from Mother Russia.
Now they they don't have other people's money to play with some harsh
realities have come home to roost.
When you take away the individual reward for individual excellence, you
stop individuals from excelling.