 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / November 2006Have a great day yaketyak
Why Vote For Democrats: Non-Rude Version For Tender-Eared Independents Who Might Be Getting Scared: Let's say, and why not, that you're on a path through the woods, and you don't have a map, but there is a clear path. And let's say, and, indeed, why not, that you've been trying to get out of the woods for days and days, weeks, perhaps months, maybe even nearly six years, and you've stayed on that same path. Sure, sure, you've been tempted to veer off, every time you've seen what looks to be a part in the trees, a previously trampled bunch of leaves. But you haven't. Because, to your thinking, there's no point in trying another way. Now let's say that your time being lost in the woods hasn't exactly been a pastoral, soul-nourishing journey eating berries, napping under the canopy, staring at stars, communing with bunnies, bathing in clear streams. No, no, let's say that it's been a damned nightmare. You've had poison ivy, poison oak, and rashes from poison plants you never even knew were poisonous. You've been chased by badgers, by boars, even by bunnies, vicious mammals everywhere. Your clothes have long ago been shredded and washed away. Your naked a.s has been bitten by snakes. You wonder why cougars keep trying to rape you. You've gotten hideous, endless diarrhea from the bacteria and sewage-infused rivers. If you get an hour of sleep without interruption from the mad screeching of hawks tearing apart mice, it's a blessing. It's all rendered you crazed, paranoid, barely able to shuffle step down the path, shaking, babbling to yourself that one day you'll find your way out. But you've stayed on that path, no matter how long it is, because it's the only real path you've had. And let's say you come to another stream. And across that stream is another path. You have a choice. You know what's going to happen on the path you're on. You may lie to yourself and say it's going to get better, but it hasn't in all this time and, gee, look up ahead, isn't that another tumescent cougar awaiting you? You may think that the new path might be worse, that the devil you know, and all that crap. But you look at yourself in that polluted stream, filthy, scabby, hungry. And you wonder what it would be like to take that short walk over the rocks and water to the other side and see, just see, if this new path will actually lead you out of the woods. There's no guarantees, just the promise of something...different. Cowards stay on the same path. Cowards would rather get beaten down again and again rather than risk even a bit of the unknown. Cowards ignore the possible to stay with the terrible comfort of the expected. Tomorrow, let's see if we're a nation of cowards. Later today: Rude Version for Disgusted Democrats -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it." good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart thing to do in a free country. >Why Vote For Democrats: Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping our other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats http://leftistwatch.0catch.com Yaketyak Free What? Where? yackingitoff are ya seeing blue? > good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart > thing to do in a free country. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://leftistwatch.0catch.com > Yaketyak >good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart >thing to do in a free country. I *like* the 50/50 split. I didn't really want the Dems in power; however, I did want Bush to hear me. If Chenny is going to run "full steam ahead", I demand to know exactly what the objective is to which we're steaming! Now, the administration will have to compromise and that's how a democracy is supposed to work. The day of: "We're staying 'till the job is done," is over. Today, Bush will have to state the job in measurable, quantifiable terms and define the criteria by which we will know it's done. Jones > I *like* the 50/50 split. I didn't really want the Dems in power; > however, I did want Bush to hear me. If Chenny is going to run "full [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > state the job in measurable, quantifiable terms and define the > criteria by which we will know it's done. This election will have little effect on Iraq. However, our taxes will go up (cuts will not be renewed) and illegals will get amnesty. The amnesty issue is ironic because thats something Bush wants and the Reps in congress have been strongly against. Now with Dems in control Bush has a better chance of getting more of what he wants. Sour grapes miles? > > I *like* the 50/50 split. I didn't really want the Dems in power; > > however, I did want Bush to hear me. If Chenny is going to run "full [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > in congress have been strongly against. Now with Dems in control Bush > has a better chance of getting more of what he wants. -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it." > Sour grapes miles? Not at all. Just find it funny that Dems are so against Bush yet he is anything but conservative. It has been the Reps in congress that have been against Bush with many issues such as immigration, not the Dems. The Illegals can't be solved here. It's going to be another wack-the-mole policy. Country's have been sending or sneaking and shipping their crap here for ever. The Saudi's who attacked us on 9/11 always had a most favorable status. The Mexican situation must be fixed in Mexico (shows you what a scam NAFTA was by then President George H. W. Bush.) and it's 2 problems Like Muslims teaching Hatred (like our Christians) many Mexicans are trying to re-win the Mexican American War, while others are simply seeking a beter life. If you look at Mexico you'll see that America is looking very similar. Mexican wealth is controlling the monopoly over it's own domain and shutting out the poor, it's as greedy as the top 2 percent of America. The division between poverty and wealth is growing just as fast as it has in America. >> I *like* the 50/50 split. I didn't really want the Dems in power; >> however, I did want Bush to hear me. If Chenny is going to run "full [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > congress have been strongly against. Now with Dems in control Bush has a > better chance of getting more of what he wants. NAFTA, from what I understand, worked well. However, Mexico had a population explosion, which may explain why there were so many illegals after '95. That was never an issue prior to then. I posed articles on usenet regarding this. >This election will have little effect on Iraq. However, our taxes will >go up (cuts will not be renewed) and illegals will get amnesty. The >amnesty issue is ironic because thats something Bush wants and the Reps >in congress have been strongly against. Now with Dems in control Bush >has a better chance of getting more of what he wants. Taxes *should* increase. To do anything else is irresponsible. The Bush administration has spent like there's no tomorrow and we have to pay for it. Taxes should triple and spending should be cut until we get out of debt. Jones >Taxes *should* increase. To do anything else is irresponsible. The >Bush administration has spent like there's no tomorrow and we have to >pay for it. Taxes should triple and spending should be cut until we >get out of debt. Sorry, !jones, but I already pay excessive taxes. I know the media doesn't report it, but we now have one of the strongest economies in the history of the nation. The deficit is falling faster than predicted due to the increased tax revenues generated by those tax cuts that you think should be eliminated. All the whinging about paying 1980 prices for gasoline is indicative of the educational level of the American populace. -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >Sorry, !jones, but I already pay excessive taxes. I know the media >doesn't report it, but we now have one of the strongest economies in >the history of the nation. The deficit is falling faster than >predicted due to the increased tax revenues generated by those tax >cuts that you think should be eliminated. Nonsense! The current administration has set spending records... our economy is based on interlocking debt. When we have no outstanding T-notes, then talk "supply-side" economics. Its author never suggested that it worked when you were in debt up to your ears. If you want a war, it's pay as we go... no T-notes may be sold. Jones >>Sorry, !jones, but I already pay excessive taxes. I know the media >>doesn't report it, but we now have one of the strongest economies in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >If you want a war, it's pay as we go... no T-notes may be sold. Yes, the current administration has set spending records. Just wait until amnesty (including Social Security benefit obligations) for the 10 million illegal aliens in our country and the 90 million mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, cousins, nieces and nephews who will be eligible to come here over the next 30 years. We just took the brakes off the current administration, !jones. Bush wants to 'get things done', so do the Democrats. We just threw out the baby and kept the bath water. -- msosborn at msosborn dot com > We just took the brakes off the current administration, !jones. Bush > wants to 'get things done', so do the Democrats. We just threw out > the baby and kept the bath water. How true. It has been the Reps in congress that have prevented Bush from getting his way on numerous issues especially immigration. With Dems in charge Bush will get his amnesty wish. > When we have no outstanding T-notes, then talk "supply-side" > economics. Its author never suggested that it worked when you were in > debt up to your ears. Tax revenues skyrocketed after the cuts. You need to learn how the Gov. gets it's money. Hiking tax rates are not always successful in raising the most revenue. >>Sorry, !jones, but I already pay excessive taxes. I know the media >>doesn't report it, but we now have one of the strongest economies in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jones I guess you are too young to remember the "War Bond Drives" and every kid with a dime going to their local Post Office buying a "War Stamp" that, when you filled your book could be traded for a "War Bond". Under your rules we would not have been able to fight WWII.  SignatureDon Thompson There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain > > Nonsense! The current administration has set spending records... our > > economy is based on interlocking debt. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you filled your book could be traded for a "War Bond". Under your rules we > would not have been able to fight WWII. Not at all. I have no objection to US citizens buying government bonds. In that case, we still have debt; however, it's internal. The government can issue notes. The problem is that we have been funding our consumptive lifestyle with them for over 35 years! I have credit cards, Don. I use them. Each month, I pay them off. If our government did similarly, then I'd have no beef. Everyone talks about the Clinton administration having a "balanced budget" and, to the extent that we went no further into debt during that administration, it was so. Of course, that was a different economy and we weren't at war. Financing a tax cut and a war by selling billions of dollars worth of T-notes to foreign governments is irresponsible. Let me put it this way: if you're involved in extensive criminal litagation and your credit cards are all maxed out, should you, at this time, take an expensive vacation putting that, also, on your credit card? (Remember that vacations have been shown to increase productivity.) I say: win the war and pay down the accumulated deficit, *then* we'll discuss a tax cut. Jones and proof of the depth of infestation of the left and their ideology in our educational system.. not to mention their success at dumbing down our student population. >>Taxes *should* increase. To do anything else is irresponsible. The >>Bush administration has spent like there's no tomorrow and we have to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >-- msosborn at msosborn dot com Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping our other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats http://leftistwatch.0catch.com Yaketyak I would think that with this great economy, you conservatives could send your kids to private schools....or use those vouchers that Busch promised you. Your thoughts? > and proof of the depth of infestation of the left and their ideology > in our educational system.. not to mention their success at dumbing [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > http://leftistwatch.0catch.com > Yaketyak not likely >I would think Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping our other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats http://leftistwatch.0catch.com Yaketyak >I would think that with this great economy, you conservatives could send >your kids to private schools....or use those vouchers that Busch promised >you. > >Your thoughts? Hand back my taxes (income and FICA), you can keep the government benefits, and I'll do just fine. Want to take your chances with an 'opt out' option? -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >> Taxes *should* increase. To do anything else is irresponsible. The >> Bush administration has spent like there's no tomorrow and we have to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > predicted due to the increased tax revenues generated by those tax > cuts that you think should be eliminated. Matt, the last fed report on the deficit was an outright lie. What was not said was that Bush had "reduced" the deficit by borrowing from both Social Security and Medicare. Of course, neither SS nor Med will ever be repaid, forcing the fedgov to increase the National Debt even further. But I guess Bush thought that nobody would notice the addition of another $300 billion to the $8.5 trillion National Debt in an election year. > All the whinging about paying 1980 prices for gasoline is indicative > of the educational level of the American populace. It's those gas prices that have caused the destabilization of both GM and Ford - and touched off a huge wave of inflation that the fedgov won't talk about. Want to know how bad it is? Find an old newspaper, complete with ads from 2003, and look at the prices of food just three years ago. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian >Matt, the last fed report on the deficit was an outright lie. What was >not said was that Bush had "reduced" the deficit by borrowing from both >Social Security and Medicare. Unemployment under 5%, the 'outright lie', the highest stock market in US history, the biggest housing boom in US history. Sinatra had it backward, if you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere. -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >> Matt, the last fed report on the deficit was an outright lie. What was >> not said was that Bush had "reduced" the deficit by borrowing from both [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > US history, the biggest housing boom in US history. Sinatra had it > backward, if you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere. Unemployment under 5% doing what, exactly? High paying manufacturing jobs? Or retail clerking at JC Penneys? Maybe a McJob at the local fast food joint? Most jobs don't pay enough for one person to live alone. Go look at the young people who are forced to go back home to live, or the couples who cannot afford to raise a family unless both work, or the older folks who cannot afford to retire because inflation has eaten their pensions and savings. The stock market is only tracking the inflation rate, Matt. Trend the Dow against that for the last forty years for a shocker. As to that housing market, you'll find it is collapsing - or has already collapsed. Places like Las Vegas, Phoenix and Florida are in deep trouble right now. Google it up, as "Las Vegas housing market 2006". The government's moving the cost of funds down to zero or one percent triggered the boom; the return to more realistic interest rates has popped that bubble. Problem is, the government cannot continue to spend an effective 25% of the Gross National Product every year without causing an absolutely catastrophic crash at some point. Remember, the government creates _nothing_; it exists only because it can and will take from everyone. Cheers, Bama Brian Libertarian >>> Matt, the last fed report on the deficit was an outright lie. What was >>> not said was that Bush had "reduced" the deficit by borrowing from both [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >catastrophic crash at some point. Remember, the government creates >_nothing_; it exists only because it can and will take from everyone. When Bush took office, our annual GDP was just over 10 trillion dollars; today it is 13.5 trillion dollars, in increase of 35%. When Bush took office, the Dow was at $6600 and the NASDAQ was $1300; today the DOW is over $12,000 and the NASDAQ is over $2400. Both have almost doubled and that's without a dot com bubble. Yes, the government DOES spend too much money. But the tax cuts grew the economy AND increased government revenues. Before you exaggerate the blemishes, name anytime in US history when we did better than this? -- msosborn at msosborn dot com >>>> Matt, the last fed report on the deficit was an outright lie. What was >>>> not said was that Bush had "reduced" the deficit by borrowing from both [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >>catastrophic crash at some point. Remember, the government creates >>_nothing_; it exists only because it can and will take from everyone. >When Bush took office, our annual GDP was just over 10 trillion dollars; >today it is 13.5 trillion dollars, in increase of 35%. Yup. Its from the 500 or 600 billion in credit card spending for a war that isn't needed. Deficit spending and supply-side economics doesn't work osborn. It never has and never will. Your party was defeated three days ago because the nuts (like you) keep whining the same tired bullshit. Learn to get the message. >When Bush took office, the Dow was at $6600 and the NASDAQ was $1300; >today the DOW is over $12,000 and the NASDAQ is over $2400. Both have >almost doubled and that's without a dot com bubble. >Yes, the government DOES spend too much money. But the tax cuts grew the >economy AND increased government revenues. >Before you exaggerate the blemishes, name anytime in US history when we >did better than this? >-- msosborn at msosborn dot com > Unemployment under 5% doing what, exactly? High paying manufacturing > jobs? Or retail clerking at JC Penneys? Maybe a McJob at the local > fast food joint? This is a liberal trait of failing to even be interested in reality. The median income has risen. That means the new jobs are above the median income level. They are not burger flippers. > > Unemployment under 5% doing what, exactly? High paying manufacturing > > jobs? Or retail clerking at JC Penneys? Maybe a McJob at the local [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The median income has risen. That means the new jobs are above the > median income level. They are not burger flippers. You are wrong: Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are working more burger-flipping jobs. You also might want to compare that tiny increase to the rate of inflation and cost of living. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-08-29-poverty-rate_x.htm "The income jump hid some somber news. Earnings actually fell for people working full-time. Household income rose because more people worked in the households, albeit at lower paying jobs. Median earnings of men declined 1.8% last year. For women, the decline was 1.3%. "It tells us the economy is still not generating the higher-paying jobs we'd like to see," says Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington." Signature1+1+1+1... > You are wrong: > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are > working more burger-flipping jobs. How can the median income rise if more people work lower paying jobs? The only way for it to rise is if more people are working jobs that pay above the median. Burger flippers average less than 1/2 the national median income salary. > > You are wrong: > > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are > > working more burger-flipping jobs. > > How can the median income rise if more people work lower paying jobs? Did you read the article? Median family income went up because more people are working (as in both parents in the family instead of just one) and working more of the low wage jobs (as in working more than one crappy job in order to pay the bills). I really shouldn't have to explain that to you. > The only way for it to rise is if more people are working jobs that pay > above the median. Wrong. Income also rises if you work more than one job, as many people are doing. > Burger flippers average less than 1/2 the national > median income salary. That is why people working the low-wage jobs are often working more than one. Got it yet? You probably should have read the article or done further research before responding. Signature1+1+1+1... >> > You are wrong: >> > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You probably should have read the article or done further research > before responding. Maybe you should read the history of multi-people working multi-jobs before you jump to conclusions. Been the way folks gained a toehold on the "middle class" lifestyle since shortly after WWII. Now it is common practice. Most folks that want to gain the "upper-middle to upper class lifestyle" have been doing it that way since the '70's. Fireman married to a teacher are "rich" according to the demobots. Joe pissant working three jobs to feed his family so his wife can stay home and raise the kids is "underpriveleged" according to the demobots. Joe pissant's wife goes to work part time to help pay for the new car turns them into something demobots hate, upwardly mobile by their own initiative instead of immediately going for a government handout that turns them into slaves. SignatureDon Thompson There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain > >> > You are wrong: > >> > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > by their own initiative instead of immediately going for a government > handout that turns them into slaves. That sure is a fine bunch of made up anecdotes, but has little if anything to do with this discussion. We are talking about the drop in median income and the fact that the only reason household income went up slightly is because more people have to work extra jobs to make up for the loss in income. Don't any of you clowns read and investigate the facts on the issues before you spout your right wing mythology? Take your attempt at class envy propaganda elsewhere. It isn't relevant here. Signature1+1+1+1... >> >> > You are wrong: >> >> > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > That sure is a fine bunch of made up anecdotes, Made up? Go f.ck yourself. SignatureDon Thompson There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance. ~Goethe It is a worthy thing to fight for one's freedom; it is another sight finer to fight for another man's. ~Mark Twain >>> >> > You are wrong: >>> >> > Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Made up? Go f.ck yourself. Don T go check this out the have some new pictures of our hill. http://limasite85.us/construction_3.htm SignatureCan't we all just get along? BILL P. Just Me & DOG -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > Did you read the article? Median family income went up because more > people are working (as in both parents in the family instead of just > one) and working more of the low wage jobs (as in working more than one > crappy job in order to pay the bills). I really shouldn't have to > explain that to you. I never replied to any article reference. Only to the OP's comment about new jobs being burger flippers. The median income is listed as individual as well as household. The individual median income has risen. Most of it is salary based and not because so many people are now working 2 jobs where they weren't just a couple years ago. > > Did you read the article? Median family income went up because more > > people are working (as in both parents in the family instead of just [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I never replied to any article reference. Yes you did - I posted an article link and commented on it. You responded to my post. Pretending it didn't happen is just a very ridiculous way to show yourself to be a fool. Just because you snipped it doesn't mean that every one else hasn't seen it. > Only to the OP's comment > about new jobs being burger flippers. The median income is listed as > individual as well as household. The individual median income has > risen. Cite that individual income went up. I could not find it anywhere. I suspect you are parroting some crap you heard without verifying it. Signature1+1+1+1... > Yes you did - I posted an article link and commented on it. You > responded to my post. I did no such thing. You have me confused with someone else. > > Yes you did - I posted an article link and commented on it. You > > responded to my post. > > I did no such thing. You have me confused with someone else. Learn to follow a thread instead of snipping it and lying to cover your stupidity. Here's how it went: In article <jNf5h.2626$hM5.1329@newsfe12.phx>, miles <nope@nopers.com> wrote: > Bama Brian wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The median income has risen. That means the new jobs are above the > median income level. They are not burger flippers. (To which I replied): You are wrong: Median income did go up about 1%, but it is because more people are working more burger-flipping jobs. You also might want to compare that tiny increase to the rate of inflation and cost of living. http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2006-08-29-poverty-rate_x.htm "The income jump hid some somber news. Earnings actually fell for people working full-time. Household income rose because more people worked in the households, albeit at lower paying jobs. Median earnings of men declined 1.8% last year. For women, the decline was 1.3%. "It tells us the economy is still not generating the higher-paying jobs we'd like to see," says Douglas Besharov of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington." (Then you responded with this idiocy): How can the median income rise if more people work lower paying jobs? The only way for it to rise is if more people are working jobs that pay above the median. Burger flippers average less than 1/2 the national median income salary. ... If that was too hard to follow, you can go to google where they have it nicely threaded for you: http://tinyurl.com/u7naa Go down to about number 39 to see where I got into the thread and you replied. Signature1+1+1+1... miles has no gteart claim for a large IQ/ if his IQ was two points lower he would be a tree. Joe > ? Jack A. Lopes wrote: > ? [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > -- > 1+1+1+1... -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it." > Taxes *should* increase. To do anything else is irresponsible. The > Bush administration has spent like there's no tomorrow and we have to > pay for it. Taxes should triple and spending should be cut until we > get out of debt. Oh great. Another liberal who doesn't understand taxes and the economy. You need to realize that tax revenues are now HIGHER than they ever were during the prior administration. HIGHER AFTER the tax cuts! Why do liberals seem to think the tax revenues are directly tied to tax rates? The economy has FAR greater effect. Tripling tax rates will most likely not increase revenues. A basic concept that liberals do not understand. > Oh great. Another liberal who doesn't understand taxes and the economy. > You need to realize that tax revenues are now HIGHER than they ever [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tripling tax rates will most likely not increase revenues. A basic > concept that liberals do not understand. First off, I'm about as liberal as a potato. The reason I seem liberal to you is because practically any position would look "left" from your perspective. The point that you don't seem to grasp is that we're a nation at war. I have long opposed the war simply because I did not believe that we would make the sacrifices needed to win it... and it will take far more than a magnetic "yellow ribbon" icon on your trunk deck. If we're talking about tax cuts and financing the war by selling T-notes (which is what we've done so far), then we're doomed to lose the conflict. The right is quite willing to invade; however, when the bill comes due, they want to leave it on the national credit card, i.e. in outstanding T-notes held mostly by other countries. Whether I happen to like it or not, we have, in fact, invaded Iraq and executed "regime change". Now we're left with a smoking crater in the political landscape and our service people are dying daily... and you want a tax cut! We have spent well over half a trillion dollars, seen 3,000 or so of our citizens slaughtered, and are no closer to an end than we were when Bush waved the "mission accomplished" banner... and you want a tax cut! If we are to have any hope of winning, then we must get the country on a war footing. If we continue this half-assed approach, then get ready to see another "Operation Frequent Wind" in Iraq as the enemy marches victoriously into Baghdad. Sooner or later, it will come to individual sacrifice... and, by that, I mean that *you*, sir, will have to go well beyond the bumper sticker and get out your checkbook because the bills are coming due. Jones because they dont feel secure without their hand in our pockets. >Why do liberals seem to think the tax revenues are directly tied to tax >rates? Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping our other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats http://leftistwatch.0catch.com Yaketyak >>good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart >>thing to do in a free country. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >steam ahead", I demand to know exactly what the objective is to which >we're steaming! Now, the administration will have to compromise and Here's the rub jonesy... It's not up to Pres. Bush or Cheney to figure out what the objective is now. It's up to Democrats who are now in (partial) power. Sometimes, what you wish for is your biggest nightmare. The Dems now have a doosey of a nightmare. They have been screaming that they want an all-out defeat in Iraq. They now have the opportunity to deliver. Regards, >that's how a democracy is supposed to work. The day of: "We're >staying 'till the job is done," is over. Today, Bush will have to >state the job in measurable, quantifiable terms and define the >criteria by which we will know it's done. > >Jones Hey CHUCKIE! Your Right Democrats have a doosey of a nightmare...........Funny how you loved that nightmare, how you promoted that nightmare..... what a stupid sh.t you've always been...... WRONG from day one, just a loser! >THIS IS AMERICA, IF I WANT TO EAT MY BOOGERS AND BE MORE LIKE BUSH" I >sleep with a light in my room, mommie makes me! > >>good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart > >>thing to do in a free country. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > an all-out defeat in Iraq. They now have the opportunity to deliver. > Regards, Prophet wolf gives his great opinioon............The only thing bad about the Dems winnung is guys like you and yahetyak will reap the benifits also. > >that's how a democracy is supposed to work. The day of: "We're > >staying 'till the job is done," is over. Today, Bush will have to > >state the job in measurable, quantifiable terms and define the > >criteria by which we will know it's done. > > > >Jones -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it." fuckin' joey.. you can have my tax increase and when they come for my guns I'll give them yours.. and my bullets. treason isnt a pretty thing and there are no benefits from it for anyone. >> >>good question.. I never thought voting for socialists was a smart >> >>thing to do in a free country. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> > >> >Jones Secure ALL the Borders, Kill ALL the Terrorists and STOP helping our other ENEMY by continuing to mislable them as Democrats http://leftistwatch.0catch.com Yaketyak But Yak, you are the one committing treason, you don't believe our constituion. You sir would make a *great* Nazi. > fuckin' joey.. you can have my tax increase and when they come for my > guns I'll give them yours.. and my bullets. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > http://leftistwatch.0catch.com > Yaketyak -- "In consciousness dwells the wondrous, with it man attains the realm beyond the material, and the Peyote tells us, where to find it." >Here's the rub jonesy... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >an all-out defeat in Iraq. They now have the opportunity to deliver. >Regards, Well, I didn't *want* a defeat in Iraq; however, I always doubted that we'd be willing to pay the price it took to win... I still do. I wasn't willing and said so at the outset. Further, I fear that a win in Iraq would be seen as a mandate to invade yet other countries (Syria or Iran) since the army is in the neighborhood. Would a "defeat" for Hitler in Poland about 1938 been seen as "good" in the long run for Germany? I think so. I'm with you, though: I doubt that the Dems have a clue. Jones Actually that was the independent view. Now let me give you the Democrat view. The democrats have no idea which trail through the woods is the right one. Left to their own leadership they don't enter the woods. However, since the repubs ventured down the path the Democrats followed but at everyone turn they wait until the repubs make a choice and then the dems simpley yell at the top of their lungs that it was the wrong path. They never offer to provide a roadmap for what might work better. They always wait until the repubs do something and then take the contrary view of it and shout it at the top of their lungs. The dems are kind of like a dog chasing a car. The fun and excitement is the actual chase. One day the dog caught the car but had absolutely no idea what to do with it. Well the dems now have just caught the car they were chasing. Soon we will see if they jump out front and lead down a path or if they simply spend the next 2 years trying to investigate the last 6 years and prove that what was done. The dems just caught the car and we will find out if they have any idea what to do with it. Oh and by the way, when the dems spend the next two years trying to determine the reasons why we went into Iraq they will need to investigate themselves since most of them voted for it. Just an independent who is extremely tired of the bluster of the dems and the repubs. Thank goodness ellection day is over and may God help us all. > Why Vote For Democrats: Non-Rude Version For Tender-Eared Independents > Who Might Be Getting Scared: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > and the Peyote tells us, > where to find it." > Actually that was the independent view. Now let me give you the Democrat > view. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > determine the reasons why we went into Iraq they will need to investigate > themselves since most of them voted for it. the dems did indeed screw up. they did NOT vote for the war in iraq. they voted to give bush the power to do what he deemed nessesary to protect the country in Oct. This was well before bush invaded Iraq the next March. > Just an independent who is extremely tired of the bluster of the dems and > the repubs. Thank goodness ellection day is over and may God help us all. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >> and the Peyote tells us, >> where to find it." In the real world, if a=b and b=c then a=c. > > Actually that was the independent view. Now let me give you the Democrat > > view. [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > >> and the Peyote tells us, > >> where to find it." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.