JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Nate Nagel wrote:
Heh! Here's an example of "Google is not ALWAYS your friend!"

I'm sitting in the living room of an attractive lady watching the TV
news. I'm waiting for her to skin a muskrat or whatever women are
doing when they say "I'll be ready in a minute." When, apparently
hearing the news and reaching a stopping point on the muskrat
project, she suddenly bursts into the room and scream: "That goddamn
Bush should learn some history!" I reply: "Uh, he has a degree from
Yale. In history." (note
similarity to my comment above).

She: "That's a goddamn lie!"

Me: (tappity-tappity on her computer) "Ah, here it is. He also has
an MBA from Harvard."

She: "THE ****IN' REPUBICANS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE INTERNET!"

Thinking quickly, I concocted a complicated, but believable, excuse
for leaving. I think it was "I have to go." Anyway, I learned two
things: 1. Google is not always your friend.
2. Use caution when dating someone who is bi-polar (used to be called
"manic-depressive").

It was only our second date, so I didn't have more than about a
hundred dollars invested in the endeavor. I shudder to think what
would have happened if, say, two years down the road and happily
married, I'd found out then that she was a liberal.

In her defense, Bush *appears* completely ignorant of history,
especially that immediately concerning his father.

If I were Yale, I'd be mortified.

You don't have to be a liberal to realize and accept that while W may
have excellent credentials, he certainly appears to be a ****ing
idiot. And I don't mean that as an exaggeration; I truly believe
that Yours Truly would have made a better President than W.

What's sad is, probably a lot of people voted for Bush not because
they liked him but because they felt the same way about "the other
guys."
Oh I agree; Bush was not my first choice! The best person for the job
wasn't running (me).

William F. Buckley (I think) said that we could be governed better by the
first 500 names in the Boston 'phone book than by a cadre of professional
politicians.

In defense of Bush, however, it's hard to argue with 22 consecutive
quarters of economic growth. Then the Democrats took control of Congress
and, in a mere 18 months, managed to peg the needle on the economic
****-up meter.

Right now, the aforementioned meter has died of shame. Obama's budget
deficit for the first year alone eclipses the eight years of Bush
combined. And we haven't even gotten to universal health care, Social
Security reform, and free breast implants.



It's always easy to argue against starting a war in the wrong country,
rather than USE (and the worst way for Saddam and the best way for us) an
unsavory dictator to maintain stability in one place while we deal with the
right place (Pakistan). Bush may have a diploma, but he has no knowledge of
history. He's one of many fools who think that once soldiers begin dying, it
makes the cause a noble one, even if the cause is a complete mistake like
Iraq (or Vietnam).


the only mistake was you not being aborted.