Hello Lee,   
      
   On Mon 2012-Feb-13 12:51, Lee Lofaso (3:800/432) wrote to Richard Webb:   
      
      
      
   >LL>It is all too easy to blame GWB for the problems this country has.   
   >LL>But the fact of the matter is that those problems have existed for   
   >LL>years, with little or nothing done about them.  As a result, it was   
   >LL>just a matter of time before everything imploded and went to shit.   
   >LL>GWB simply made things happen sooner rather than later.   
      
   RW>Agreed, i consider the clinton years a buble that was bound   
   RW>to burst, sooner or later, and it wasn't that good, but at   
   RW>least money was moving around, and folks were spending it.   
      
   LL> It was definitely a "feel-good" presidency, the biggest story of   
   LL> those years being the president getting a blowjob from a White House   
   LL> intern.  :)   
      
   Yeah I know.  i was still trying to figure out waht all that bs was about.    
   Grounds for divorce, maybe, that was between   
   him and his wife.  What business was it of mine who honks   
   his horn?   
      
   LL> I still have the speech to the nation Bill Clinton gave about the   
   LL> meaning of the word "is".  The man was such a great debater he could   
   LL> convince his harshest critics he was right.   
      
   IT was a leg slapper alright.   
      
   >RW>AS for Wall Street, forget Wall Street, they've got their too big to   
   >RW>fail happening when it comes to sticking their hands in our wallets   
      
   RW>The auto industry maybe, but i can't see where the rest of   
   RW>this bailout actually helped average folks any at all.  Was   
   RW>reading in the NEw York Times weekly braille edition the   
   RW>other day that fat cats are crying that they're limited to   
   RW>$125k bonuses at some companies.  Jesus Christ!  $125k and   
   RW>this jerk's gonna cry?  Come on, he makes $60k a year and   
   RW>is gonna cry cause his bonus is limited to $125k?  I have no   
   RW>sympathy.   
      
   LL> And yet Mitt Romney is the frontrunner for the Republican   
   LL> nomination. After Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary, it   
   LL> was gloves off for Mitt Romney.  The end result was Newt Gingrich   
   LL> getting run over by a freight train.  And now that Rick Santorum has   
   LL> won three straight primaries (plus his win in Iowa) the same thing   
   LL> will happen to him. What remains of Santorum that can be found will   
   LL> be so scattered that it won't really matter...   
      
   Yeah I know, the whole bunch of 'em scare me.  Wish I still   
   had it, but a NEw YOrk times braille weekly editorial said a third party   
   candidate who could actually put together a   
   platform talking about rebuilding the infrastructure, etc.   
   could sure do well with voters.  IF I still had it I'd quote some of it.   
      
   LL> How did Mitt Romney get so fabulously wealthy?  And why is he using   
   LL> his wealth to steamroll his way to the Republican nomination? Nobody   
   LL> seems to know what Mitt Romney is all about.  What is he for?  He   
   LL> has the money to tarnish the reputation of any candidate who runs   
   LL> against him.  Not sure that strategy will work against incumbent   
   LL> President Barack Obama in the general election, who is getting more   
   LL> and more popular with each passing day...   
      
   I've always wondered that myself.  This guy's fabulously   
   wealthy and will outspend the competition.  I can believe   
   somebody else would win Iowa though, those Republican   
   farmers aren't gonna vote for a guy like Romney.  I have   
   plenty of Republican farmer friends back in the midwest, and before romney   
   ever set foot in IOwa I could've told you that these guys weren't ROmney   
   voters.   
      
   >LL>"Corporations are people." - Mitt Romney   
      
   RW>YOu cannot jail a corporation, nor can you torture it, deny   
   RW>it liberty.  YOu can holdits officers and directors liable   
   RW>for criminal acts however.  Hence, it is not a person,   
   RW>because it cannot be held personally responsible in the way   
   RW>people can.   
      
   LL> It's a legal term, the courts ruling that corporations are people.   
   LL> Gerry Spence wrote in detail about the ruling several years ago.    
      
   I know that, but still it's bullshit.  If you can get   
   drilled down far enough to find out who actually gave the   
   order, then you can jail or fine or otherwise hold that   
   person responsible, but you cannot hold a corporation   
   responsible for its actions as you can a person.  Until you   
   can, a corporation is not a person.   
      
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)