Who do you support for U.S. Senate in California in 2010?

[Mike DiRucci]

jondee wrote:

...here is the one i like in ca. we the taxpayers are now going to fund the homeless, with free cell phones!! i wonder if it will keep them warm, on these cold night? price:$16 billion, yes, that would be dollars!

If they burn them they'll keep them warm. And they probably will. Hell, they're free. Why not?

[Mr Anderson]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
Big D cares! That's the joke son.

now youre just flat out exaggerating

you brought it up after all!

FUN!!

Ps Romney lost, sore loser!!

[Mike DiRucci]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
you brought up the "constitution"
i dont really care what you think about it either, so there!

You get mad and say real stupid stuff like what the Constitution means depends on who's reading it and other ridiculous dopiness. Than when corrected you just say "I don't care, you brought it up."

What a dope!

FUNNY!

[Mr Anderson]

jondee wrote:

...here is the one i like in ca. we the taxpayers are now going to fund the homeless, with free cell phones!! i wonder if it will keep them warm, on these cold night? price:$16 billion, yes, that would be dollars!

16 billion?? JUST on cell phones?? are you joking??

that much money would suuply a cell phone to everybody on this continent.

[Mr Anderson]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
You get mad and say real stupid stuff like what the Constitution means depends on who's reading it and other ridiculous dopiness. Than when corrected you just say "I don't care, you brought it up."
What a dope!
FUNNY!

why is "what the constitution means"

"really stoopid stuff"??

the tenth amendment is clear....

how can it be confusing?

you either believe in states rights, or you dont.

i guess you must not.

but I could be wrong.

[Mr Anderson]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow, you really showed me.

I did??

just stick to the topic ok??

[RiccardoFire]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
the tenth amendment is clear....
arnt you republiturds, big states rights advocates??
or is that only when it is conveinient??

I doubt the California Driver Handbook is clear to you.

[akpilot]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
I did??
just stick to the topic ok??

With your random thoughts, incomplete sentences, and stream of consciousness writing who the hell knows what the topic is with you.

[RiccardoFire]

Obama sending Muslim Bros 20 more F-16's

Instability in Egypt, where a newly-elected Islamic government teeters over an angry population, isn't enough to stop the U.S. from sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets, as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package.

The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an Egyptian government that the president cannot even clearly state is an ally of the United States

The $213 million order, which is paid for by U.S. taxpayers and is part of Egypt's foreign aid package from America, had to be approved by lawmakers in Washington.While the basic F-16 has been a military workhorse for top air forces for more than 25 years, the cockpit electronics are constantly updated and the models Egypt is getting are the best defense contractor Lockheed Martin makes.

Not a joke, True story.

[Mike DiRucci]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
now youre just flat out exaggerating
you brought it up after all!
FUN!!
Ps Romney lost, sore loser!!

Where's your leader "Big D"? It's funny when he's around you act real tough! Back him up on his stupid Clinton's impeachment "failed" schtick and all.

Then when you get your asses handed to you, you just shrug it off and act dopey. Big D is fun too, he sulks.

Too Funny!

P.S. Romney lost, get over it. Time for that "Yes we can!" Obama promised 4 years ago But didn't deliver. Maybe this term. Or not. Probably not. But it's Bush's fault!

WOOHOO!

[Mike DiRucci]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
but I could be wrong.

Right.

[WasteWater]

RiccardoFire wrote:

Obama sending Muslim Bros 20 more F-16's
Instability in Egypt, where a newly-elected Islamic government teeters over an angry population, isn't enough to stop the U.S. from sending more than 20 F-16 fighter jets, as part of a $1 billion foreign aid package.
The Obama administration wants to simply throw money at an Egyptian government that the president cannot even clearly state is an ally of the United States
The $213 million order, which is paid for by U.S. taxpayers and is part of Egypt's foreign aid package from America, had to be approved by lawmakers in Washington.While the basic F-16 has been a military workhorse for top air forces for more than 25 years, the cockpit electronics are constantly updated and the models Egypt is getting are the best defense contractor Lockheed Martin makes.
Not a joke, True story.

Come on Riccardo. Selling weapons is the only industry where the United States is still competitive. If they get out of line we can just shoot em down. Then buy some more for the next clowns. Don't you want to support our huge defense system? Just invest your money in Lockheed. You can get in on a really good thing there. That's good old Conservative American Capitalism working to keep you rich and safe.

Sweet Dreams.

[Mike DiRucci]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Come on Riccardo. Selling weapons is the only industry where the United States is still competitive. If they get out of line we can just shoot em down. Then buy some more for the next clowns. Don't you want to support our huge defense system? Just invest your money in Lockheed. You can get in on a really good thing there. That's good old Conservative American Capitalism working to keep you rich and safe.
Sweet Dreams.

I love it when you talk like that! I feel richer and safer!

Thanks toots. You too.

[WasteWater]

Mike DiRucci wrote:

<quoted text>
I love it when you talk like that! I feel richer and safer!
Thanks toots. You too.

Somebody gets richer while others get poorer. You know why they call investment companies brokerage houses? It's because you often end up broker.

[Test taker]

Didn't vote.

[OOTT]

I like Duane Roberts!

[akpilot]

WasteWater wrote:

<quoted text>
Somebody gets richer while others get poorer. You know why they call investment companies brokerage houses? It's because you often end up broker.

Wealth is not a finite commodity. One does not get poorer because another gets richer. That is simply a foolish statement.

There is only ONE "industry" that can make another poorer while lining its pocket with their wealth- GOVERNMENT.

[OOTT]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth is not a finite commodity...

Yeah, as long as the crooked bankers can keep talking the government to keep printing money then there should be plenty of "wealth" for everyone!

[Big D]

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Wealth is not a finite commodity. One does not get poorer because another gets richer. That is simply a foolish statement.
There is only ONE "industry" that can make another poorer while lining its pocket with their wealth- GOVERNMENT.

Depends on how they are getting richer doesn’t it. I know of people that have gutted companies turning people out of work, or moving the factories to foreign countries with cheaper labor. More and more people out of work, and decidedly poorer.

Interesting to note these were mostly Republicans.

[Mike DiRucci]

Mr Anderson wrote:

<quoted text>
why is "what the constitution means"
"really stoopid stuff"??
the tenth amendment is clear....
how can it be confusing?
you either believe in states rights, or you dont.
i guess you must not.
but I could be wrong.

Not what the constitution means is stupid, YOU are stupid when you say the constitution means whatever someone reading it thinks it means.

You are either smart or you're stupid. And you're stupid!

And yes, of course you're wrong. Again.

What a dope!