 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/08/2012 5:08 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Also, what's up with the House of Lords Spiritual?
Is that the House of Lords, Spiritual?
Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
had to be listened to.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>
> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.
And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
want you to know during an election year.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2012 9:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:05 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for
>> domestic drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an
>> amendment was introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was
>> voted down--by the Republicans.
>
> That doesn't surprise me one bit. The Republican agenda is simple: Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>
> IOW, blame Obama for not being a Republican or not holding to Republican
> values. If only he would believe what they believe, then there'd be no
> problem. Other than we'd have Republican values dictating policy.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, someone joked a while back that the surest way to get anything
progressive done in Washington was to put in two bills, one that was
100% Republican, and endorsed by Obama, and one that claimed to be
Republican, but was 100% progressive, but which he declared he would
veto. It might only work once, but if you packed enough into the, "I
don't want this passing", bill... lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2012 7:39 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>>
>> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.
>
> And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
> want you to know during an election year.
>
>
They also probably don't want people to know that the only reason the
oil subsidies probably where apposed by oil special interests, even
while the oil execs said they didn't need them, is that, if we took
global warming seriously, and took steps to curtail it, one of the
things we would have to do is bury long term investments in thousands of
new oil wells they have existing permissions to build, for the next
50-100 years, effectively killing their whole entire investment strategy
(which amounts to Palin's "Drill baby, drill!", and the rest's, "Then
sell it to China!").
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8/9/2012 11:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:56 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim
>> or that he is an atheist. The fact that these lies are even worth
>> telling indicate the kind of atmosphere here. (Another lie about
>> President Obama is that he is a progressive. I only wish that one were
>> true.)
>
> Actually, I think there's probably a very good chance that Obama is
> culturally Christian but religiously atheist. Of course, he could never
> admit that because it would be political suicide.
>
There was a post a while back on a blog which stated, in essence, that,
among Jews there are Orthodox, moderates, and atheists, while,
basically, among Christians there are Evangelicals, moderates, and uh...
really moderate? Not even the ones that are atheist would be caught dead
admitting it, unless they are priests, in which case there have been a
recent rash of them, and a whole special organization, which involves
them all helping and supporting each other, to either get out, or keep
shepherding the flock, even while they realize that the "sheep" have
actually been lemmings, all along.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> That doesn't surprise me one bit. The Republican agenda is simple: Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?
Seriously, I have yet to hear a single idea come out of the UK
government without whichever parties are in opposition condemning it as
a stupid idea that will never work and will cost British taxpayers millions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
> had to be listened to.
IT'S THE BISHOP!
<que music...>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:52:48 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> That doesn't surprise me one bit. The Republican agenda is simple:
>> Vote for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is
>> for. Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>
> Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?
Not to the extent that happens here in the US.
In most rational, civilized countries, the two (or more) parties figure
out how to compromise on things.
But here in the US, the Republican idea of compromise is "do it the way
we want, or we'll block everything you want to do".
The Democratic idea of compromise is closer to actual compromise, but
when compromising, you expect something from the other side. It seems
that most Democratic legislators are naive enough to believe the
Republicans when they say "give us something here and we'll give you
something on something else" - which they rarely, if ever do.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/08/2012 8:55 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
>> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
>> had to be listened to.
>
> IT'S THE BISHOP!
>
> <que music...>
No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
