On Sep 1, 8:39Â am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>>>>> Google too takes up the
>>>>>> corporate spirit that all are almost infinitessimately small (and
>>>>>> don't count)
>>>>> Google provodes a free speech forum to the poorest of the poor.
>>>> Not to the day laborer in Beijing.
>>> The Chinese economy will surpass the U. S. economy in 6 years. The
>>> Chinese have already gone high tech.
>> What you mean to say is
>
> The Chinese economy will surpass the U. S. economy in 6 years. Â The
> Chinese have already gone high tech.
In order for China's economy to become larger than that
of the US, all that's required is a per-capita income that is
one-fourth that of the US.
>>> Soon all Chinese will have free speech.
>> Just like that, eh?
>
> They already have free speech on economic issues. Â
So, obviously, your daffynition of "free speech on economic
issues" has nothing to do with real free speech on any
issue at all.
> The commie party
> leaders or "inner kindgom" or whatever ain't out on the dock counting
> shipping containers.
Actually, they are.
>>> In sharp contrast America will remain in GOP tax cut stagflation for
>>> decades according to Soros.
>
> . . . .
>
>> Â you have prophets such as Soros to tell you
>> what the future holds, eh?
>
> Soros has a good track record.
Wasn't he the guy who thought Nevada was going to
legalize marijuana a few years back?
> Why aren't _you_ making billions on the markets?
Because Soros is holding on to vital geo resources,
of course. Ask Henry George. Geez.
> The answer is because you are too dumb.
I'm guessing that's why you still can't afford that Guide
to Using Your Computer CD the corpwhores sell on TV
for people like you. "Just put the CD in that coffee cup
holder thing on your computer, fire it up, and you too
can figger out how to preserve the attributions of Usenet
posts you respond to. If you aren't 100%% satisfied that
my CD's can teach you to send me an e-mail, just send
me an e-mail stating your dissatisfaction and I'll refund
your money via Catch-22 express."
>>> Hollywood has nutters believing that if they "git pushed too far" thay
>>> can "pocket veto" a black candidate.
>> What you mean to say is that Hollywood has the moonbats
>> believing
>
> that if they "git pushed too far" they can "pocket veto" a black
> candidate.
Ah, so now we know it's actually the moonbat wing of the
leftard parties (not some fantasy gun-oilers) that believe
these things. Thanks for being honest for once.
