In article ,
BikeFan wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:

That's completely spurious. That is not what he said at all. This
portrayal is as preposterous as the MYTHICAL "Joe the Plumber" story is
too. It's a fairy tale invented by the GOP.

It was an opening left by a chance encounter by Obama himself. The GOP
merely enjoyed themselves immensely beating him about the face and head
using a door that Obama opened himself.

With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo stupid.

Which make believe entity?

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:

That's completely spurious. That is not what he said at all. This
portrayal is as preposterous as the MYTHICAL "Joe the Plumber" story is
too. It's a fairy tale invented by the GOP.
It was an opening left by a chance encounter by Obama himself. The GOP
merely enjoyed themselves immensely beating him about the face and head
using a door that Obama opened himself.
With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo stupid.

Which make believe entity?

This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.

--
BikeFan

"Boden" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:
"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:


"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...

Mike Granby wrote:

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a
presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb,
Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.


but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at getting my
vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog
I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,
energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

Boden

I've got a problem with religious zealots and the-bridge-to-nowhere thing
made her seem hypocritical. Now she's coming off as a typical republican
pit-bull mud slinging slanderer. Other than that I'm sure she's a nice lady.


olddog

In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo stupid.

Which make believe entity?

This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.

But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him, Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..

HeyBub wrote:
Michael B wrote:

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.

Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but
some. Obama does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes - with
him, it's not a matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he draws
the line.
In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me
whether it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a
yellow van. Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes
will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So how do you propose to pay off the immense national debt ?

Ask Santa to wipe it out ?

I despair of a future poem:

In Obama's world, they came first for those making more than
$250,000, And I didn't speak up because I didn't make that much;

And then they came for the corporations, And I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a corporation;

And then they came for those who off-shored their work, And I didn't
speak up because I worked domestically;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no
one left to speak up.

Pathetic.

Bob F wrote:
"retired54" wrote in message
...

"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 17, 12:20 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:

Let's take a look at Obama's full quote:

"My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the
bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a
plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’re gonna be
better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford
to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is
bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around,
it’s good for everybody."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-the-weal.html

He wasn't arguing for higher rates on the rich to redistribute
income. To the contrary, he is arguing that lower rates on the
middle class will "spread the wealth" to everyone including upper
income folks who rely on the middle class as their employees and
consumers.

Nice try at a save. Really nice try.

Like Murtha's attempt yesterday when he said constituents weren't
really 'racist' racists - they were just slow to accept change.

Take from the rich, give it to the poor, so they can give it back
to the rich. Why not just let the rich keep their wealth and
eliminate the middle-man?

You missed the point, namely that Obama's "spread the wealth" line
was not linked to his support for raising taxes on the rich. Thus,
your characterization is off base.

Obama merely observed (much lke Henry Ford's approach to wages), if
the middle class can't afford to buy cars, we *all* (which happens to
include the rich) are screwed.

Josh Rosenbluth

================================================== ==

Maybe a caste system similar to Mexico would make the republicans happy.

That's getting close.

Nope, not anymore, you watch.

Boden wrote:
retired54 wrote:
"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...

In article
,
"retired54" wrote:
"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...

Mike Granby wrote:

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on
people earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted
to punish anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he
want on to explain his trickle-up theory. You simply can't
rewrite history and claim that this was somehow not related to
the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same
philosophy about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford
did. Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a
presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to
"Bomb, Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing
until the election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical
Republicans, when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But
I've since seen only rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat,
positive straight-talker McCain was back then. Mostly all I've seen
of McCain in this campaign is the ugly, stupid sideshow put on by
his politically-deformed Republican campaign managers, many drivers
of whom make their clueless, scummy, racist appearance here on
Usenet. As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but
the contemporary Republican party has become a sickening,
traitorous, repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every
"gain" they think they have made over the last ten years. They put
pimps and procurers in the DHS, torturers in charge of the military
and intelligence departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ.
They hold drunken and drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they
elect child molesters to the House of Representatives and
hypocritical, self-hating closet queers & tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere,
while the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their
ability to pay their pregnant daughters' fare to places where
abortions are legal and safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days
form the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad
we couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like
cages on the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he
swept ashore. They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers,
feckless reprobates and utterly irredeemable. They have fully
earned their discredited right to be excluded from any significant
governance function or even public discourse for generations.


but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at
getting my vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog


I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

BobR wrote:

You clearly don't understand the mindset at work here. The leftist
mindset is to make assumptions about what was actually said and then
call the person a liar when their assumptions don't turn out to be the
case.

The rightists never do anything like that, of course.
-- Doug

"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay for the
deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. -- Doug

CJT wrote:
HeyBub wrote:

Michael B wrote:

C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.


Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but
some. Obama does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes -
with him, it's not a matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he
draws the line.

At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills
instead of accumulating debt.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me
whether it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a
yellow van. Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes
will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time will never get
my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for
us.

Actually, under the Bush administration, taxes on everybody were lowered. As
a result, we had six years of a pretty good economic climate: Low inflation,
low unemployment, 21 months of continued economic growth. This in spite of
911, Katrina, and two wars. Then the Democrats took over.

In less than 20 months they managed to **** things up beyond all
recognition.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --


Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't bother
to look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a deficit,
like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues. When taxes are
lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy expands, federal
revenues are increased.

Now liberals believe that the amount of wealth is fixed, it just needs to be
redistributed in the name of fairness. This theory expands to the belief
that unless taxes are increased, the deficit will not go down.

Conservatives understand that wealth can be increased and that when it is,
part of the increase can be used to pay down the deficit.

On a smaller scale, a contractor may go into debt to buy a new truck. With
this truck he can work more jobs. These new jobs generate more revenue. Part
of the increased revenue is used to pay the debt incurred to buy the truck,
and part is allocated to profit.

Don't be fooled: Democrats do not want to raise taxes to lower the deficit -
they want to raise taxes to equalize everybody's income.

Rod Speed wrote:

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over
her brother in law or whoever he is.
Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
We must immediately increase the taxes on the poor.

I've favored a flat-flat-tax. It's a little different, let me explain.

You take the federal budget and divide it by the number of people in America
to get a per-capita tax. Let's say it works out to $5000 per person. Each
person, then, pays a flat $5,000 to the government for himself and each of
his dependents. But there are flaws.

For example, a poor person who doesn't HAVE $5,000. What's he to do? Well,
he could contribute one unit of blood platelets each month for ten months
(at $500/unit) and have his taxes paid for the year. Sort of like our
current withholding tax.

But, you may ask, what about the young mother with four children under the
age of five. She can't give five units per month and it would be cruel
indeed to drain blood from toddlers! True. But she could contribute a
kidney. Assuming this kidney replaced a dialysis machine worth $100,000,
she'd have the taxes for herself and her brood paid for four whole years!
Add the blood platlets, combined with possible charity and savings from her
welfare payments, and she could stretch her paid-up taxes to maybe six
years.

But what happens at the end of six years? It would be absurd to ask her to
contribute her remaining kidney! Right. But she could contribute a cornea.

Another five or six years of paid-up taxes.

At the end of that time, most of her litter are off having precious
snowflakes of their own and she'd revert to the status of a single taxpayer.

I really don't see any flaws in the scheme.

HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

HeyBub wrote
Stormin Mormon wrote

We must immediately increase the taxes on the poor.

I've favored a flat-flat-tax. It's a little different, let me explain.

You take the federal budget and divide it by the number of people in
America to get a per-capita tax. Let's say it works out to $5000 per person.

Thats a lie. It works out to a lot more than that.

Each person, then, pays a flat $5,000 to the government for himself and each of his dependents. But there are flaws.

For example, a poor person who doesn't HAVE $5,000. What's he to do? Well, he could contribute one unit of blood
platelets each month for ten months (at $500/unit) and have his taxes paid for the year. Sort of like our current
withholding tax.

Who wants the blood of the scum ?

But, you may ask, what about the young mother with four children
under the age of five. She can't give five units per month and it
would be cruel indeed to drain blood from toddlers! True. But she
could contribute a kidney. Assuming this kidney replaced a dialysis
machine worth $100,000, she'd have the taxes for herself and her
brood paid for four whole years!

Pity about the next year.

Add the blood platlets, combined with possible charity and savings from her welfare payments, and she could stretch
her paid-up taxes to maybe six years.

Pity about the next year.

But what happens at the end of six years? It would be absurd to ask her to contribute her remaining kidney! Right. But
she could contribute a cornea.

Another five or six years of paid-up taxes.

At the end of that time, most of her litter are off having precious snowflakes of their own and she'd revert to the
status of a single taxpayer.

I really don't see any flaws in the scheme.

Presumably you actually are that stupid.

Why not make her breed more frequently and use the brats for spare parts ?

On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:30:10 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

RLM wrote in
:

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 16:26:46 -0500, Andy Asberry wrote:

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 22:35:34 GMT, "retired54" wrote:



He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means
he's not a plumber."



olddog


How do you get the experience to pass the plumbers test if you are not
allowed to do plumbing work to get the experience to pass the plumbers
test if.....

Carry a lot of pipe, pipe fittings, pick up tools, and more tools.
Years of go-fer work. Purchase your own tools of the trade. Tradesmen
don't lend tools. Next time he needs it, it's not there. Takes time to
hunt lazy ass helpers to get tools returned. You have possibly heard
time ='s money.


All we know is he works for a plumbing company. He may be the
warehouse man or a ditch digger.

Ditch digging is the foremost at teaching the plumbing trade. Breaking
out clogged pipes and cleaning up "waste" is also helpful and builds
character. Tests your ability to follow orders. Clean up after yourself
when you have to, also helps.

Not meant to be easy or everyone would want to be one.

I'm glad I didn't personally chose this occupation but know those that
did. They are not rich by mine or their standards but proud of what
they do. They are within Obama's criteria for tax breaks though.

So much for "Joe the labourer".




you seem to miss the part where Joe said he planned to BUY a
businessanounced earning more than Obama's $250K limit,NOT that he
currently earned $250K or more.
If he bought a business,he would of course get the required licenses in
order to operate the business.

I didn't miss any parts. Joe doesn't sound like he's related to anything
smarter than a glass of water. So much for this plumber's planning.

"Joe the labourer" possibly couldn't raise the capital to buy tools, let
alone a business profiting over a quarter of a million a year. You must
have faith he has the experience to get a license. I believe he will
remain a labourer and liar. A continued failure like the lying story
teller.


Leftist/libs ought to listen better.
They failed during Bush's explanations for the Iraq invasion,the leftist
media aided in continuing that misunderstanding,and thus prolonged the
conflict,and sacrificed more US troops lives in doing so.

I'm proud to be a Stand Up Leftist Liberal member of the Democratic Party.
Not some fence sitter. We listened to the failed "W.".

Bush has been defeated by a Bedouin that masterminded the downfall of the
economy of the United States and disrupted world markets with cheap box
knives that his commandos didn't even have to smuggle into this country to
use. Then Bush and his fools invaded the wrong country to look for the
Mastermind Bedouin. I didn't miss anything from Bozo Bush and his bunch.

He thought oil theft would be easy. He was easily fooled. He may be
looking for the wrong Bedouin for all we know.

Perhaps you should have stayed on track instead of introducing the
failures that belong to Conserva-trash.

Wall Street thieves belong to the Conserva-trash also. Looks like "W." has
nothing to offer future generations but disappointment and debt as a
president. He will reap the blame for Wall Street's thievery and debt
also.

(and so did Obama,when he violated the US law(Logan Act) prohibiting US
citizens from working against the direct negotiations of the US Gov't(a
felony) by telling Iraqi legislators they should WAIT until the next
administration before signing the Status of Forces agreement,prolonging
the time US troops stay in Iraq and getting more of them killed.)

I believe you have reread an article about the dead, Runny Nose RayGun.
That involved Iran and hostages. Not Iraq.

An "Inauguration Day Surprise".

I remember it well. I wish he was still alive bumping into things, ****ing
and ****ting down his leg and making Nancy's life miserable. Imprisoned in
his meagre little mind. A laughing stock.

I await the Jan. 20th surprise, like RayGun announced.

I wish Obama would say during his inauguration speech;
As I speak they are on their way home! BRING THEM HOME!

Troops this time, instead of hostages.

Iran is next door to Iraq. The spelling is close so I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt this time. Geography's tough for a youngster.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...e=UTF8&t=h&z=5

Come back when you get that G.E.D.. It has been sweet talking at you
Jimmy.

1st Hint: BIG letters begin sentences.

Douglas Johnson wrote in
:

BobR wrote:

You clearly don't understand the mindset at work here. The leftist
mindset is to make assumptions about what was actually said and then
call the person a liar when their assumptions don't turn out to be the
case.

The rightists never do anything like that, of course.
-- Doug


conservatives(not "rightists") seem to LISTEN better and to all of what was
said.

Barack Hussein Obama seems to make a LOT of lies and "errors",flip-
flops,and stuff he blames on his campaign workers.

I -DO- know Obama clearly said he intends to redistribute wealth by use of
the tax system. COMMUNISM.

I know Obama is anti-gun despite his lies to the contrary.
His actions and record have proven his lie.

I know Obama lied about his association with Ayers.
It's proven by the Chicago Annenberg Challenge records and Obama's own
words as written in his books.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Rod Speed wrote:
HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.


EVEN IF HE TASED HIS STEP SON?

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --


Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't bother
to look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a deficit,
like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues. When taxes are
lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy expands, federal
revenues are increased.

Now liberals believe that the amount of wealth is fixed, it just needs to
be redistributed in the name of fairness. This theory expands to the
belief that unless taxes are increased, the deficit will not go down.

Conservatives understand that wealth can be increased and that when it is,
part of the increase can be used to pay down the deficit.



But they don't make it work!

To pay down the deficit the budget has to be balanced.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering taxes
but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced
budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget. now Dubya with his
war and the bail out.

Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk. That's why I want a
change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and eliminate wasteful
spending. It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's what
you spend!

Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending. Make damn sure what
is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet project of the presidents.

olddog

There are only two types of republicans: millionaires and fools.

Boden wrote:
retired54 wrote:
"Dick Cheney" wrote in message
...

In article ,
"retired54" wrote:


"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
...

Mike Granby wrote:

True or not, his use of "spreading the wealth" was
not related to raising taxes on the rich.


Rubbish! He was answering a question about raising taxes on people
earning over $250k. He said that it wasn't that he wanted to punish
anyone's sucess (ie. by raising taxes) and then he want on to explain
his trickle-up theory. You simply can't rewrite history and claim
that
this was somehow not related to the taxation discussion.

Fair enough. But, folks have been using his "spread the wealth"
comment
to argue he's a socialist who wants to punish the rich. That's
bull****.
He supports progressive taxation because he shares the same philosophy
about the importance of the middle class as Henry Ford did.

Josh Rosenbluth

It was an unfortunate choice of words. With as much speaking a
presidential
candidate does it's bound to happen. It's nothing compared to "Bomb,
Bomb,
Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" but McCain is going to ride this thing until the
election because he doesn't have anything else.

I voted for McCain against Bush. Like many other ethical Republicans,
when Bush won the primary, I switched parties. But I've since seen only
rare glimpses of the gracious, upbeat, positive straight-talker McCain
was back then. Mostly all I've seen of McCain in this campaign is the
ugly, stupid sideshow put on by his politically-deformed Republican
campaign managers, many drivers of whom make their clueless, scummy,
racist appearance here on Usenet.

As a party, Republicans of conscience should be ashamed of the means
they employ to win at any cost. The shameless among them should be
fought to a decisive, bloody end. The Democrats are bad enough, but the
contemporary Republican party has become a sickening, traitorous,
repulsively ignorant mob, well worthy of losing every "gain" they think
they have made over the last ten years. They put pimps and procurers in
the DHS, torturers in charge of the military and intelligence
departments, and criminal plotters in the DoJ. They hold drunken and
drugged orgies in the Interior Dept., they elect child molesters to the
House of Representatives and hypocritical, self-hating closet queers &
tax evaders to the Senate.

They piously want to outlaw abortion for poor women everywhere, while
the wealthy maintain their right to choose through their ability to pay
their pregnant daughters' fare to places where abortions are legal and
safe.

The filth and gutter minds backing the Republican party these days form
the cutting edge of this nation's disintegration. It's too bad we
couldn't have locked them all in open-air, Guantanamo Bay-like cages on
the lowest point of Galveston Island to meet Ike when he swept ashore.
They are hicks, thieves, gouging carpetbaggers, feckless reprobates and
utterly irredeemable. They have fully earned their discredited right to
be excluded from any significant governance function or even public
discourse for generations.


but tell us how u really feel.

just joking...well said!!

I voted for McCain in the primaries but he lost any chance at getting
my vote when he picked that airhead for VP.

olddog

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,
energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

Boden

I'll have to take your word for it, because her public persona is a
shrill cheerleader-turned socc^H^H^H^Hhockey mom type spewing pithy
one-liners intended to make good sound bites and rile up the less
intelligent constituents of the right-wing base and not much else. IOW
exactly the kind of the person I want many miles away from the Oval
Office. I'm with olddog, "President Palin" is even harder to choke out
than "President Cheney."

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised
for anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --


Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't
bother to look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a
deficit, like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues.
When taxes are lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy
expands, federal revenues are increased.

Now liberals believe that the amount of wealth is fixed, it just
needs to be redistributed in the name of fairness. This theory
expands to the belief that unless taxes are increased, the deficit
will not go down. Conservatives understand that wealth can be increased and that when
it is, part of the increase can be used to pay down the deficit.

But they don't make it work!

To pay down the deficit the budget has to be balanced.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering
taxes but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve a
balanced budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget. now Dubya with his war and the bail out.

And W's dad got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk.

W's dad did.

That's why I want a change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and eliminate wasteful spending.

But also plans to spend a hell of a lot more too.

It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's what you spend!

Try telling that to Obummer. Dont be too surprised when he laughs in your face.

Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending.

It was that mentality that made the great depression much worse.

Its a viable approach in good times, but not in bad times.

Make damn sure what is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet project of the presidents.

Corse no democrat has ever done anything like that, eh ?

There are only two types of republicans: millionaires and fools.

Mindless one eyed bigotry.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
olddog wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised
for anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --


Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't
bother to look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a
deficit, like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues.
When taxes are lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy
expands, federal revenues are increased.

Now liberals believe that the amount of wealth is fixed, it just
needs to be redistributed in the name of fairness. This theory
expands to the belief that unless taxes are increased, the deficit
will not go down. Conservatives understand that wealth can be increased
and that when
it is, part of the increase can be used to pay down the deficit.

But they don't make it work!

To pay down the deficit the budget has to be balanced.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering
taxes but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve a
balanced budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget. now
Dubya with his war and the bail out.

And W's dad got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk.

W's dad did.

Oh he did did he?:

http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm

That's why I want a change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and
eliminate wasteful spending.

But also plans to spend a hell of a lot more too.

It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's what you
spend!

Try telling that to Obummer. Dont be too surprised when he laughs in your
face.

Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending.

It was that mentality that made the great depression much worse.

Your looking at how we got out of the depression - NOT how we got into it!

Its a viable approach in good times, but not in bad times.

Make damn sure what is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet
project of the presidents.

Corse no democrat has ever done anything like that, eh ?

There are only two types of republicans: millionaires and fools.

Mindless one eyed bigotry.
But an axiom that still holds true.

olddog

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo stupid.
Which make believe entity?
This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.

But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him, Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..

No, he's a made up entity. He's not a plumber has no intention of buying
the business he works for. He's just an actor in a fantasy passion play
for GOP supporters.

--
BikeFan

Rod Speed wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Michael B wrote:
C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.
Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but
some. Obama does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes - with
him, it's not a matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he draws
the line.
In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me
whether it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a
yellow van. Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes
will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

So how do you propose to pay off the immense national debt ?

Ask Santa to wipe it out ?

I despair of a future poem:

In Obama's world, they came first for those making more than
$250,000, And I didn't speak up because I didn't make that much;

And then they came for the corporations, And I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a corporation;

And then they came for those who off-shored their work, And I didn't
speak up because I worked domestically;

And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no
one left to speak up.

Pathetic.


Even more so when you consider this "Joe the plumber" entity is an
invention.

--
BikeFan

"BikeFan" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo
stupid.
Which make believe entity?
This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.

But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him, Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..

No, he's a made up entity. He's not a plumber has no intention of buying
the business he works for. He's just an actor in a fantasy passion play
for GOP supporters.

--
BikeFan

On CNN today they had a story about two real "Joe the Plumbers" that are
pretty surprised with all the attention they are getting.

One works at Ace Hardware on the weekends so I think it's safe to say he's
making under $250k.

I think "Joe the Pretend Plumber" is just some guy that got caught up in
this and was exposed as a fraud. The guy makes $40k, doesn't have a license,
owes back taxes, and he wants to buy a business that is going to gross over
$250k? Talk about sub-prime lending!

It's a joke but apparently it's going over John McCain's head. Let's just
hope it doesn't go over the voters head.

olddog

"Boden" wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,
energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think of.

Boden

That would automatically disqualify her for being a politician in DC.

Steve

olddog wrote:

"BikeFan" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo
stupid.
Which make believe entity?
This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.

But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him, Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..

No, he's a made up entity. He's not a plumber has no intention of buying
the business he works for. He's just an actor in a fantasy passion play
for GOP supporters.

--
BikeFan

On CNN today they had a story about two real "Joe the Plumbers" that are
pretty surprised with all the attention they are getting.

One works at Ace Hardware on the weekends so I think it's safe to say
he's making under $250k.

I think "Joe the Pretend Plumber" is just some guy that got caught up in
this and was exposed as a fraud. The guy makes $40k, doesn't have a
license, owes back taxes, and he wants to buy a business that is going
to gross over $250k? Talk about sub-prime lending!

It's a joke but apparently it's going over John McCain's head. Let's
just hope it doesn't go over the voters head.

Yeah, he's the GOP imaginary friend. So sad.

--
BikeFan

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article , CJT
wrote:


H
At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills instead
of accumulating debt.



Of course he does. ALL politicians do, that is the problem. The GOP
types abandandoned their pretense of fiscal responsibility long ago.
Thus, the current debacle is largely based on BOTH sides spending money
hand over fist. Synergies and all that.


Nonsense. Dubya inherited a surplus from Clinton. The Democrats are
now the fiscally responsible party. The "borrow and spend" Republicans
have no discipline whatsoever. Just look at what Arnold has done to
California for an additional example.

In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me whether
it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a yellow van. Obama
will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for
anybody for any reason at any time will never get my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for us.

Kept the revenues rolling in, because they also lowered the taxes
for the non-rich?


\

Turned surplus into deficit. Destroyed the value of the dollar.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

HeyBub wrote:


Michael B wrote:


C'mon, the guy can't even pay his taxes, but tells the candidate for
President about his dream of buying up the company. And then
McCain's handlers latch onto it without adequate research. O'Bama
says Joe's taxes wouldn't change unless he goes over $250,000,
they should have at least found out what Joe's income was running.


Bottom line: Obama will raise taxes on some. Maybe not many, but
some. Obama does not have an inbred distaste for raising taxes -
with him, it's not a matter of whether to raise taxes, it's where he
draws the line.

At least he doesn't have an inbred distaste for paying the bills
instead of accumulating debt.


In a nutshell, Obama will raise some taxes. It doesn't matter to me
whether it's on someone who makes more than $250,000 or drives a
yellow van. Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes
will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time will never get
my vote.

Look at what lowering the taxes of the rich under Bush has done for
us.


Actually, under the Bush administration, taxes on everybody were lowered. As
a result, we had six years of a pretty good economic climate: Low inflation,
low unemployment, 21 months of continued economic growth. This in spite of
911, Katrina, and two wars. Then the Democrats took over.

In less than 20 months they managed to **** things up beyond all
recognition.


That's total hogwash. We had six years of "house-of-card-building"
while deregulated (and never regulated) financial entities and the Fed
artificially stimulated the economy and people used their houses as
ATMs. Now it's all coming home to roost.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

olddog wrote:


"BikeFan" wrote in message
...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo
stupid.

Which make believe entity?

This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.


But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him, Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..


No, he's a made up entity. He's not a plumber has no intention of buying
the business he works for. He's just an actor in a fantasy passion play
for GOP supporters.

--
BikeFan


On CNN today they had a story about two real "Joe the Plumbers" that are
pretty surprised with all the attention they are getting.

One works at Ace Hardware on the weekends so I think it's safe to say
he's making under $250k.

I think "Joe the Pretend Plumber" is just some guy that got caught up in
this and was exposed as a fraud. The guy makes $40k, doesn't have a
license, owes back taxes, and he wants to buy a business that is going
to gross over $250k? Talk about sub-prime lending!
^^^^^

I think you mean "net." If he grosses only $250K (assuming he has some
expenses), then he's still better off with Obama.



It's a joke but apparently it's going over John McCain's head. Let's
just hope it doesn't go over the voters head.

olddog




--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

"CJT" wrote in message
...
olddog wrote:


"BikeFan" wrote in message
...

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
BikeFan wrote:


With a make-believe entity. You must thing the public are soooo
stupid.

Which make believe entity?

This mythical "Joe the Plumber" nonsense.


But he exists. He asked the question after Obama came up to him,
Obama
answered it, the press reported it, the GOP latched onto it. So, unless
you believe that Joe the Plumber is really Michael Chiklis
(http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004821/)..


No, he's a made up entity. He's not a plumber has no intention of buying
the business he works for. He's just an actor in a fantasy passion play
for GOP supporters.

--
BikeFan


On CNN today they had a story about two real "Joe the Plumbers" that are
pretty surprised with all the attention they are getting.

One works at Ace Hardware on the weekends so I think it's safe to say
he's making under $250k.

I think "Joe the Pretend Plumber" is just some guy that got caught up in
this and was exposed as a fraud. The guy makes $40k, doesn't have a
license, owes back taxes, and he wants to buy a business that is going to
gross over $250k? Talk about sub-prime lending!
^^^^^

I think you mean "net." If he grosses only $250K (assuming he has some
expenses), then he's still better off with Obama.


I'm thinking of a paycheck.

For a business it's: income - allowable deductions (inc. cost of goods
sold) = taxable income. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's been awhile since I looked at financials obviously.

olddog

olddog wrote
Rod Speed wrote
olddog wrote
HeyBub wrote
Douglas Johnson wrote
HeyBub wrote

Obama will raise taxes. Any candidate who says any taxes will be raised for anybody for any reason at any time
will never get my vote.

So will McCain. He just isn't saying so. Somebody has got to pay
for the deficit. It's either you and me or our grandchildren. --

Name the last Republican president to advocate raising taxes. Don't bother to look it up - it was Herbert Hoover.

First, the deficit is nowhere near its historical high. Second, a
deficit, like any other debt, can be paid by increased revenues.
When taxes are lowered, federal revenues increase. When the economy expands, federal revenues are increased.

Now liberals believe that the amount of wealth is fixed, it just
needs to be redistributed in the name of fairness. This theory
expands to the belief that unless taxes are increased, the deficit
will not go down. Conservatives understand that wealth can be
increased and that when
it is, part of the increase can be used to pay down the deficit.

But they don't make it work!

To pay down the deficit the budget has to be balanced.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering
taxes but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve
a balanced budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget.
now Dubya with his war and the bail out.

And W's dad got everyone else to pay for the first gulf war.

Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk.

W's dad did.

Oh he did did he?:

Yep.

http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm

Doesnt say that that increase was due to the first gulf war.

That's why I want a change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and eliminate wasteful spending.

But also plans to spend a hell of a lot more too.

It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's what you spend!

Try telling that to Obummer. Dont be too surprised when he laughs in your face.

Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending.

It was that mentality that made the great depression much worse.

Your looking at how we got out of the depression - NOT how we got into it!

Wrong. It was that cutting mentality that Hoover attempted that made
it much worse until FDR started with Keynesian deficit spending and
the WW2 did that in spades and fixed the problem completely.

Its a viable approach in good times, but not in bad times.

Make damn sure what is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet project of the presidents.

Corse no democrat has ever done anything like that, eh ?

There are only two types of republicans: millionaires and fools.

Mindless one eyed bigotry.

But an axiom that still holds true.

It aint an axiom and its a lie that it holds true.

In article ,
"olddog" wrote:

d.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering taxes
but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced
budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget. now Dubya with his
war and the bail out.

Most of the time, though especially through the Reagan era, the Dems
were in control of the purse strings. Remember the yearly press
conferences where the Dem leadership called the RR budgets "dead on
arrival"?
W learned from Daddy not to trust the Dems with good reason. When the
"Budget Summit" was held the Dems said they would not go and nothing
would get past the Congress unless there were both tax increases and
budget cuts. In the spirit of bipartisanism, GHWB signed the tax
increase and the Dems beat him over the head with it. BTW: They forgot
the budget cuts they promised.



Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk. That's why I want a
change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and eliminate wasteful
spending. It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's what
you spend!

Interestingly, they did for about the first five years. The yearly
percentage increase in expenditures was less than the five previous
years under the dems. The bad part is after about 5 years, the GOP lost
their way and percentage increases for the next 5 years were back to
where they were before.


Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending. Make damn sure what
is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet project of the presidents.
Or the Congresscritters.

RLM wrote:


Leftist/libs ought to listen better.
They failed during Bush's explanations for the Iraq invasion,the
leftist media aided in continuing that misunderstanding,and thus
prolonged the conflict,and sacrificed more US troops lives in doing
so.

I'm proud to be a Stand Up Leftist Liberal member of the Democratic
Party. Not some fence sitter. We listened to the failed "W.".

Bush has been defeated by a Bedouin that masterminded the downfall of
the economy of the United States and disrupted world markets with
cheap box knives that his commandos didn't even have to smuggle into
this country to use. Then Bush and his fools invaded the wrong
country to look for the Mastermind Bedouin. I didn't miss anything
from Bozo Bush and his bunch.

It was NEVER the policy of the United States to kill or capture Osama ben
Laden. If it happen in the pursuit of other goals, that would be a bonus.
But since 9-12, the singular goal of the United States has been to prevent
further attacks on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
the government focused on disrupting terrorist communications, financing,
training, recruiting, their subverting of friendly governments, and the
killing of any that get in our sights.

Since the early 90's, there has been one or two attacks on the U.S. or its
overseas interests every year. These include WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania, kidnapping of diplomats, and, of course 9-11. Since
the government's policy on terrorism began there has not been one single
attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad.

The program has worked.

It is the liberal or progressive mind-set that sees the issue as a
law-enforcement problem.


I wish Obama would say during his inauguration speech;
As I speak they are on their way home! BRING THEM HOME!

Troops this time, instead of hostages.


I keep hearing that mantra. I have yet to hear one good reason to do so.
Look, these people signed up for the opportunity to kill people and blow
things up. Do you really WANT those folks back home?

Rod Speed wrote:
HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think
of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over
her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?

In article , CJT
wrote:


Nonsense. Dubya inherited a surplus from Clinton. The Democrats are
now the fiscally responsible party. The "borrow and spend" Republicans
have no discipline whatsoever. Just look at what Arnold has done to
California for an additional example.
Clinton was in office for a once-in-a-lifetime forces of the G-G
expansion. Unusually low and long-term rates and monetary increases from
Greenspan and unusually high productive and long-term productivity
increases from Gates (as the alliterative way to bring out the
productivity increases brought about computers). The case could also be
made that Clinton should thank the GOP for stopping the big tax
increases he wanted early in his term which might have screwed the
pooch.
The trouble, especially any more, is that there is NO fiscally
responsible party. Look at the earmarks for instance. No one wants to
say no and everyone wants to make sure they get their bit. Of course
this is largely in response to the desires of the voters.




Turned surplus into deficit. Destroyed the value of the dollar.

Surplus was going and gone before W came into office. Especially if
you add back in the SS "surplus" which by law goes into non-marketable
treasury securities. Only in Washington can they take a long-term
liability and call it a short term asset. BTW: The farce was put in
place LONG before Clinton so it isn't that he had anything do with it.

snip

sorry rod but you're talking in circles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Neither of us are experts on the subject!

What do you want? A balanced budget?

Go to the numbers and see who did a better job (in recent history)?

http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm

If that doesn't do it for ya.... I'll have to say we agree to disagree.

We get the government we deserve!

olddog

HeyBub wrote:
RLM wrote:

Leftist/libs ought to listen better.
They failed during Bush's explanations for the Iraq invasion,the
leftist media aided in continuing that misunderstanding,and thus
prolonged the conflict,and sacrificed more US troops lives in doing
so.
I'm proud to be a Stand Up Leftist Liberal member of the Democratic
Party. Not some fence sitter. We listened to the failed "W.".

Bush has been defeated by a Bedouin that masterminded the downfall of
the economy of the United States and disrupted world markets with
cheap box knives that his commandos didn't even have to smuggle into
this country to use. Then Bush and his fools invaded the wrong
country to look for the Mastermind Bedouin. I didn't miss anything
from Bozo Bush and his bunch.

It was NEVER the policy of the United States to kill or capture Osama ben
Laden. If it happen in the pursuit of other goals, that would be a bonus.
But since 9-12, the singular goal of the United States has been to prevent
further attacks on the United States or U.S. interests abroad. To do this,
the government focused on disrupting terrorist communications, financing,
training, recruiting, their subverting of friendly governments, and the
killing of any that get in our sights.

Since the early 90's, there has been one or two attacks on the U.S. or its
overseas interests every year. These include WTC 1, the USS Cole, embassies
in Kenya and Tanzania, kidnapping of diplomats, and, of course 9-11. Since
the government's policy on terrorism began there has not been one single
attack on the United States or U.S. interests abroad.

The program has worked.

It is the liberal or progressive mind-set that sees the issue as a
law-enforcement problem.

I wish Obama would say during his inauguration speech;
As I speak they are on their way home! BRING THEM HOME!

Troops this time, instead of hostages.


I keep hearing that mantra. I have yet to hear one good reason to do so.
Look, these people signed up for the opportunity to kill people and blow
things up. Do you really WANT those folks back home?


That's unfair. A lot of these people are those who didn't have
opportunities early on in life and figured that boot camp was better
than spending the rest of their lives dirt farming/pimping/whatever.

I know several people that were in ROTC for the college money. None of
them were people that I feared in any way.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"olddog" wrote:

d.

Sure the Republicans think they can stir the economy up by lowering taxes
but then they fail to do the budget cuts necessary to achieve a balanced
budget. Look back to Reagan. Star Wars blew our budget. now Dubya with
his
war and the bail out.

Most of the time, though especially through the Reagan era, the Dems
were in control of the purse strings. Remember the yearly press
conferences where the Dem leadership called the RR budgets "dead on
arrival"?
W learned from Daddy not to trust the Dems with good reason. When the
"Budget Summit" was held the Dems said they would not go and nothing
would get past the Congress unless there were both tax increases and
budget cuts. In the spirit of bipartisanism, GHWB signed the tax
increase and the Dems beat him over the head with it. BTW: They forgot
the budget cuts they promised.



Republicans talk-the-talk but they don't walk-the-walk. That's why I want
a
change and Obama says he'll go through the budget and eliminate wasteful
spending. It's just like I tell my wife. It's not what you make; it's
what
you spend!

Interestingly, they did for about the first five years. The yearly
percentage increase in expenditures was less than the five previous
years under the dems. The bad part is after about 5 years, the GOP lost
their way and percentage increases for the next 5 years were back to
where they were before.


Fine, lower taxes, but don't increase federal spending. Make damn sure
what
is being spent is benefiting us and not some pet project of the
presidents.
Or the Congresscritters.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

http://www.parade.com/articles/editi...005/featured_0

olddog

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote:
HeyBub wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I knew her long before McCain picked her. She's actually a bright,

Nope, her IQ is that of a stupid.

energetic lady whose ethics are above any politician I can think
of.

'think' again. Pity about how she abused her position to **** over
her brother in law or whoever he is.

Nothing ethical about that.

And just how did she **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a state trooper.

Not if Palin had got what she attempted he wouldnt have been.

Completely unethical to even try to do that.

So she DIDN'T **** over her brother-in-law?

He's still a trooper. She fired a guy that was supposed to fire her
brother-in law.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/ar...849399,00.html

olddog