Re: There was no mention of money for poor people. -- Final End

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:03:22 02/23/03 Sun
Author: The Serpent
Subject: Re: There was no mention of money for poor people.
In reply to: schwabra 's message, "Humorous, but" on 19:56:00 02/22/03 Sat

I think the last issue of Fortune Magazine mentioned Wal-Mart being in financial competition with the Pentagon, and Wal-Mart was listed the number one money making business in America while General Electric slipped to number five. General Electric is the number one arms manufacturer in America, while it also dabbles in the media, and owns NBC.

If a Democrat is elected in the next election and this war thing with Iraq goes as scheduled, the Democrat in office would be able to do his job, which is throw access crumbs to the "lower class" while still sucking up to corrupt corporations. If a Republican remains in power, the money is handed towards the "upper class" and beyond, while also sucking up to corrupt corporations. Either way we've got the chosen actor masked as the president.

Still, though, something doesn't seem right. Why Iraq? They must be aware of more clear and present dangers, if any, that the public wouldn't be so opposed to. Of course, since Germany is one of the few who doesn't want a war with Iraq, the USA Today claims that Germany might have been involved in the 9-11 attacks.

*ho-ho* Yeah, right. We're willing to put up with our Forest Dubya Gump president and his lack of intelligence, but lack of intelligence from our own "Intelligence?" Why'd it take this long to even figure that one out? Or even figure it out as a possibility? When we were attacked, we must have thought of many other terrorist countries, and those who would be in cahoots with them.

It makes no sense. It's a scam. These wealth addicts make me just as sick, schwabra.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]