Alex DeLarge wrote:

In terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I
must part company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things
could be worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it.
Obama shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence,
avarice, hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value.
I can hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush
by such a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.


chuckle

...the more things "change" the more they stay the same...

Pretty much.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:35:01 -0400, queenie
wrote:

I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO

And they don't actually have to *do* anything for the Religious Right
the way they do Big Business.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:35:01 -0400, queenie
puked:

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO

But the Democrats, in this case, have crafted policies that save and
benefit big business and have proposed taxes that hurt small business
along with little in the stimulus for them.

So in essence, it's more of the same, except they are going out of
their way to hurt the group of businesses that employ the largest
number of people in the US.

In addition, they are continuing the concept of "trickle down" by
either giving huge sums of cash or outright taking over large
businesses hoping that it will trickle down into the economy.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. *I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

lab~rat :-) wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 17:35:01 -0400, queenie
puked:

rOn Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:59 -0600, Howard Brazee
wrote:

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.
I totally agree with you, but it seems to me that the Democrats craft
policies that benefit the middle and lower classes and Republican
policies benefit the wealthy. Because Republican policies benefit
the minority--the wealthy, they need hate speech, racism, and wedge
issues to distract and divide so that they can win elections. JMO

But the Democrats, in this case, have crafted policies that save and
benefit big business and have proposed taxes that hurt small business
along with little in the stimulus for them.

So in essence, it's more of the same, except they are going out of
their way to hurt the group of businesses that employ the largest
number of people in the US.

In addition, they are continuing the concept of "trickle down" by
either giving huge sums of cash or outright taking over large
businesses hoping that it will trickle down into the economy.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

In the final analysis, republicans and democrats work the precise same
agenda. The difference is that they tell different lies. As to which
one ultimately "wins" (assuming one of them does), that will only
determine whether we become outwardly socialist or fascist, which in
terms of the pleasantness of our daily lives will be six of one or half
dozen of the other. As the old Wendy's ads used to say "one choice is
no choice".

If these elites are not beaten down - beaten unto death, we are all
****ed. So I will once again suggest that all ideologues on each side
of the argument proceed to remove their heads from their rectums as
rapidly as possible - forget this left/right nonsense, learn to
recognize the real threat, get over themselves and get to thinking
correctly about what should and should not be happening.

wf3h wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of
economic growth, but of out of control printing of paper money,
which our esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to
kick off and which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights
GW's puny mind could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge
tax of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I
must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence,
avarice, hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value.
*I can hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip
Bush by such a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.


Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?

On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote :



And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--

as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.


And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. *I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Bush never did like baby killing, especially when the USA was paying
for it.

wf3h wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote
:



And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts
was to fund abortions in other countries... --

as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want
to pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.


And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in
foreign countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed


Sure Dr Mengele, they were just Jews, who cares?