Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:31:28 -0500, the infamous "David R.Birch"
scrawled the following:


Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

Jesse is a Repugnican and Franken is a Demonrat. Of course Jesse was
smarter. He was a whole lot stronger, too.

--
Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass;
it's about learning how to dance in the rain.
--Anon

On Jun 30, 9:49*pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:31:28 -0500, the infamous "David R.Birch"
scrawled the following:



Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

Jesse is a Repugnican and Franken is a Demonrat. Of course Jesse was
smarter. *He was a whole lot stronger, too. *

--
Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass;
it's about learning how to dance in the rain.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --Anon

Yeah but Franken has a better head of hair. ;)

TMT

On Jun 30, 9:31*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:49 pm, Larry Jaques
wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 21:31:28 -0500, the infamous "David R.Birch"
scrawled the following:



Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?
Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.
Jesse is a Repugnican and Franken is a Demonrat. Of course Jesse was
smarter. He was a whole lot stronger, too.

--
Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass;
it's about learning how to dance in the rain.
--Anon

Yeah but Franken has a better head of hair. ;)

TMT

Oh, good, we needed another Kennedy. How's his driving record?

David

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.

TMT

Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

On Jul 1, 10:21*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.

TMT

Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

Well you may have a point.

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious problem.

And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.

And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.

TMT

On Jul 1, 10:21*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.

TMT

Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

Hey David...just remember that George Bush had a close first
election...and had two terms.

TMT

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.

David

Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.

TMT

Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

Well you may have a point.

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious problem.

And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.

And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.

TMT

As soon as the democrats have to use a supermajority their power will wane.

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious problem.

This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.

And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.

I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses" guys.

And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.

Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.

David

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?
Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.
David
Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.
TMT
Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

Hey David...just remember that George Bush had a close first
election...and had two terms.

That's because the Dems didn't provide serious opponents, much like
the Reps didn't last year.

David

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:21*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?


And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

That's a fact.

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and
from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious
problem.

This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.

And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.

I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses"
guys.

And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.

Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.


How did he do that, by having the county in good shape? Bush drove us
into the ditch. It's no wonder the people didn't want republicans after
what they did to us. But all Clinton did wrong was get a blow job from
someone other than his wife and not own up to it. I hardly see how those
two things are close to being equal reasons to change parties.

Hawke

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?
Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a
lot
brighter.
David
Well he just beat a Republican....sounds like he is a keeper.
TMT
Considering how close it was, probably only till the next election.

David

Hey David...just remember that George Bush had a close first
election...and had two terms.

That's because the Dems didn't provide serious opponents, much like
the Reps didn't last year.

David


Have you seen the people the republicans have to run in the next
election? Talk about a weak group of candidates.

Hawke

David R.Birch wrote:

Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro wrestler
governor?

Dunno, but from what I've read of what they've said, Jesse is a lot
brighter.


Curiously, Coleman lost to both of them...

Fine crop of R's you are growing up there...

On Jul 1, 1:21*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious problem.

This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.



And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.

I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses" guys.



And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.

Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.

David

No David, the Clinton/GWB electability is not the same.

Clinton and Obama have won by landslides....I emphasize...landslides.

GWB squeaked by barely.

And now the Democrats have SIXTY votes in Congress...the Republicans
can only dream of this.

And note the polls...even now the Republicans are lucky the public
isn't using them for target practice.

And as we are seeing the Republican Party is extremely good at
shooting itself in the foot.

With Rush serving as the spokeman (like where is Bush?), the Party
will never attract the mainstream voters it needs.

TMT

Face it. We're ****ed with the 60th democrat in there. It's going to be a
long two years until any housekeeping can be done electionwise unless some
of the *******s do the right thing and die.

It's a class caste system.

We, the unwashed rabble are left to our own hardscrabble healthcare while
the elite enjoy cradle to grave coverage.

As more and more die from preventable causes, the groundswell will come.

But in time to save the day for who? (m)

The illegals?

Face it. We're ****ed.

My free opinion and worth twice the price of admission.

Steve

Hawke wrote:

That's because the Dems didn't provide serious opponents, much like
the Reps didn't last year.

David


Have you seen the people the republicans have to run in the next
election? Talk about a weak group of candidates.

Hawke

Unfortunately true of both sides of the aisle.

David

Hawke wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and
from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious
problem.
This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.
And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.
I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses"
guys.
And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.
Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.


How did he do that, by having the county in good shape?

Funny thing about that, people remember the economic down turn, but
they forget that it started early in 2000, almost a year before GWB
took office.

Bush drove us
into the ditch. It's no wonder the people didn't want republicans after
what they did to us. But all Clinton did wrong was get a blow job from
someone other than his wife and not own up to it.

If that were true, I would still have a Class 1 FFL. Clinton gave the
ATF the go ahead to deny licenses until the number of Class 1 FFL is
now a third of what it was. Clinton (& Biden) pushed the 1994 assault
(sic) weapons bill. Remember, not all gun owners are conservative, it
was a non-partisan issue until the Fems changed that.

I hardly see how those
two things are close to being equal reasons to change parties.

Irrelevant, although I'd be surprised if our Secretary of State gave
BJs at all.

To quote Woody Allen, "I won't be able to uncross my legs for a week."

David

On Jul 2, 6:17*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Hawke wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and
from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious
problem.
This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.
And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.
I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses"
guys.
And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.
Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.

How did he do that, by having the county in good shape?

Funny thing about that, people remember the economic down turn, but
they forget that it started early in 2000, almost a year before GWB
took office.

Bush drove us
into the ditch. It's no wonder the people didn't want republicans after
what they did to us. But all Clinton did wrong was get a blow job from
someone other than his wife and not own up to it.

If that were true, I would still have a Class 1 FFL. Clinton gave the
ATF the go ahead to deny licenses until the number of Class 1 FFL is
now a third of what it was. Clinton (& Biden) pushed the 1994 assault
(sic) weapons bill. Remember, not all gun owners are conservative, it
was a non-partisan issue until the Fems changed that.

I hardly see how those
two things are close to being equal reasons to change parties.

Irrelevant, although I'd be surprised if our Secretary of State gave
BJs at all.

To quote Woody Allen, "I won't be able to uncross my legs for a week."

David

Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.

It will cost more before it is over.

TMT

On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:17:18 -0500, the infamous "David R.Birch"
scrawled the following:

Hawke wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

BUT...the Repubicans are not winning any popularity contests and
from
all indications (which Republican will be cheating on his wife this
week?) the Democrats will be seeing a strong second term.

When Rush is the spokesman of your Party, you have a serious
problem.
This is the same nonsense that I heard in 2000 and 2004 about the
imminent end of the Democratic Party.
And that magic number of 60....well the Republicans would be
sacrificing their only remaining virgin if they had one if they
thought it would get them one more vote in Congress.

We won....you lost...again.
I didn't win or lose, I'm one of those "a pox on both your houses"
guys.
And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

Thank you George.
Just like Clinton made even GWB electable.


How did he do that, by having the county in good shape?

Funny thing about that, people remember the economic down turn, but
they forget that it started early in 2000, almost a year before GWB
took office.

Bush drove us
into the ditch. It's no wonder the people didn't want republicans after
what they did to us. But all Clinton did wrong was get a blow job from
someone other than his wife and not own up to it.

If that were true, I would still have a Class 1 FFL. Clinton gave the
ATF the go ahead to deny licenses until the number of Class 1 FFL is
now a third of what it was. Clinton (& Biden) pushed the 1994 assault
(sic) weapons bill. Remember, not all gun owners are conservative, it
was a non-partisan issue until the Fems changed that.

I hardly see how those
two things are close to being equal reasons to change parties.

Irrelevant, although I'd be surprised if our Secretary of State gave
BJs at all.

Ayup, ah hear tell she's a canyon yodeler.


To quote Woody Allen, "I won't be able to uncross my legs for a week."

With out Sec State in the room, I'd be unable to find my pecker, it'd
be so puckered and sucked up into its protective state.

--
Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass;
it's about learning how to dance in the rain.
--Anon

Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?
And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

That's a fact.

Just as Carter gave Reagan (Thank you!)
and Clinton gave us GWB (Thanks again! Hurry back, now, ya hear?")

Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.

It will cost more before it is over.

I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

On Jul 2, 10:16*am, RBnDFW wrote:
Don Foreman wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:21 am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?
And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

That's a fact. *

Just as Carter gave Reagan (Thank you!)
and Clinton gave us GWB (Thanks again! Hurry back, now, ya hear?")

I'm glad you agree on this.

Just keep that good attitude...it will help you get through Obama's
second term. ;)

TMT

On Jul 2, 10:43*pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.

It will cost more before it is over.

I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

Look it up...this recession started in early 2007...on Bush's watch.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:43 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.
It will cost more before it is over.
I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

Look it up...this recession started in early 2007...on Bush's watch.

I guess I was optimistic about your attention span, you are apparently
unaware of the reasons for the recession.

David

"David R.Birch" wrote in message
...
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:43 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.
It will cost more before it is over.
I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

Look it up...this recession started in early 2007...on Bush's watch.

I guess I was optimistic about your attention span, you are apparently
unaware of the reasons for the recession.

David


Whatever you think they were there is no question that they happened a
long, long time before Obama became president. But that's the point
isn't it? It took a long time for the wrong decisions of the Bush
administration to bring us to where we are today. It'll take a long time
for Obama to correct things too.

If you want to know what caused our financial problems here are three
biggies. Number one was the repeal of the Glass Stegall act, which
allowed banks to get involved in all kinds of risky investments besides
the business of ordinary banking. I blame Clinton partially for this
because he signed the bill that the republicans gave him when they were
pressuring him to go along with their deregulation agenda. He did. That
was his mistake. The second cause was senator Phil Graham and his wife
who implemented an agenda that made the trading of derivatives different
from normal investments by not regulating their trade. The third mistake
came in 2004 when the execs of the big banks, including Henry Paulson,
came to congress and pressured it to change the regulation that kept
their leverage low. After this bit of deregulation the investment banks
all went from around 8 to 1 leverage to 30 or 40 to 1 and sometimes even
more. So when you take these three mistakes made under republican
leadership into account you see a big reason for the financial meltdown,
republican financial decisions. Also take note all this happened way
before Obama.

So the republicans caused this with their deregulation agenda and their
hands off approach to business. Now it's up to Obama to repair all the
damage and get us back on track. That's one hell of a job. It'll take
time too. But as usual, the republicans want things back to normal, and
today.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


So the republicans caused this with their deregulation agenda and their
hands off approach to business. Now it's up to Obama to repair all the
damage and get us back on track. That's one hell of a job. It'll take
time too. But as usual, the republicans want things back to normal, and
today.

Hawke



they're trying to pin it on obama, gain political advantage (like the
democrats did w/ the war) for the next election cycle, make him look bad
hoping to regain some lost seats. people are falling for it too.

b.w.

On Jul 3, 6:57*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:43 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.
It will cost more before it is over.
I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

Look it up...this recession started in early 2007...on Bush's watch.

I guess I was optimistic about your attention span, you are apparently
unaware of the reasons for the recession.

David

LOL...nice attempt to discredit me but no success.

And an attempt to divert...also noted.

TMT

On Jul 3, 3:13*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"David R.Birch" wrote in message

...



Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jul 2, 10:43 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
Well David using your own logic, the economic disaster that Obama
inherited started in 2007...almost 2 years ago...so Bush is
responsible for the TRILLIONS that it has cost.
It will cost more before it is over.
I realize your attention span is a lot shorter than that, but the
current mess started a lot longer than 2 years ago.

David

Look it up...this recession started in early 2007...on Bush's watch.

I guess I was optimistic about your attention span, you are apparently
unaware of the reasons for the recession.

David

Whatever you think they were there is no question that they happened a
long, long time before Obama became president. But that's the point
isn't it? It took a long time for the wrong decisions of the Bush
administration to bring us to where we are today. It'll take a long time
for Obama to correct things too.

If you want to know what caused our financial problems here are three
biggies. Number one was the repeal of the Glass Stegall act, which
allowed banks to get involved in all kinds of risky investments besides
the business of ordinary banking. I blame Clinton partially for this
because he signed the bill that the republicans gave him when they were
pressuring him to go along with their deregulation agenda. He did. That
was his mistake. The second cause was senator Phil Graham and his wife
who implemented an agenda that made the trading of derivatives different
from normal investments by not regulating their trade. The third mistake
came in 2004 when the execs of the big banks, including Henry Paulson,
came to congress and pressured it to change the regulation that kept
their leverage low. After this bit of deregulation the investment banks
all went from around 8 to 1 leverage to 30 or 40 to 1 and sometimes even
more. So when you take these three mistakes made under republican
leadership into account you see a big reason for the financial meltdown,
republican financial decisions. Also take note all this happened way
before Obama.

So the republicans caused this with their deregulation agenda and their
hands off approach to business. Now it's up to Obama to repair all the
damage and get us back on track. That's one hell of a job. It'll take
time too. But as usual, the republicans want things back to normal, and
today.

Hawke

Well said.

And all true.

TMT

On Jul 3, 4:23*pm, "William Wixon" wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message

...



So the republicans caused this with their deregulation agenda and their
hands off approach to business. Now it's up to Obama to repair all the
damage and get us back on track. That's one hell of a job. It'll take
time too. But as usual, the republicans want things back to normal, and
today.

Hawke

they're trying to pin it on obama, gain political advantage (like the
democrats did w/ the war) for the next election cycle, make him look bad
hoping to regain some lost seats. *people are falling for it too.

b.w.

They are?

Check the polls.

The Republicans are lucky that the American public isn't running them
over in the street.

TMT

On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:12:11 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 09:45:56 -0700 (PDT), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

On Jul 1, 10:21*am, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Jun 30, 9:31 pm, "David R.Birch" wrote:
Is electing a comedian to the Senate better than electing a pro
wrestler governor?


And the irony is that Republicans did it to themselves.

Obama and the other Democrats would never have the overwhelming
success they have had without the help they got from George Bush.

That's a fact.

Not a problem.

in 2.3-3 yrs..the People are going to look at each other, look at DC,
look back at each other, shrug, then go get their guns and ammo and go
on a Leftwing Extremist elimination spree.

Works for me. Ill be sitting on the porch playing the banjo, as the
People leave their cars (where they have been living) and shacks and so
forth, and return the nation to the Default setting of the Constitution.
It should be an interesting 2-3 weeks until the various shootings,
hangings, beheadings and so forth run their course.

With luck, we will have at the end..a United States. If things go
poorly..we will have several collections of Red and Blue states.

Since the Red states supply most of the food, fuel and whatnot to the
Blue states...in another year or so, most of the starving will have been
done and things may..may come to an equilibribum.

Shrug

Gunner



"Lenin called them "useful idiots," those people living in
liberal democracies who by giving moral and material support
to a totalitarian ideology in effect were braiding the rope that
would hang them. Why people who enjoyed freedom and prosperity worked
passionately to destroy both is a fascinating question, one still with us
today. Now the useful idiots can be found in the chorus of appeasement,
reflexive anti-Americanism, and sentimental idealism trying to inhibit
the necessary responses to another freedom-hating ideology, radical Islam"

Bruce C. Thornton, a professor of Classics at American University of Cal State Fresno