Bush destroyed himself tonight

Not to mention that there's enough junk science in the news to prompt some
questions you had best, as a teacher, have an answer for. Fortunately,
there are several references available in the classroom, use of which
promotes the Holy Grail of education - research.

Now, why is gravity acting so strangely on Voyager?

"The Alaskan" <nospam-RonMan&@mac.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I disagree that "we'd be better off with an enhtusiastic and proficient
> English *teacher* teaching high school physics".
>
> One of these "enhtusiastic and proficient" types tried to tell my 13
> year old (in 8th grade AP science) that matter and energy are not the
> same thing. Even this group remembers that E=mc^2. This nice lady just
> read what was in the book with no understanding of what she is
> teaching.

"Brian Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 9 Sep 2003 13:17:22 -0700, [email protected] (PC Gameplayer) wrote:
>
> >I've always heard this, and it's always bothered me. Is there any
> >real proof of this? I know Reagan cut taxes, and I know there was a
> >good economy during the Clinton administration (at least the first 7
> >years, maybe 7.5). But was this a true cause and effect relationship?
> > Seems like if anyone would have prospered, it would have been GHWB.
> >Of course I was in high school at the time (Reagan era, that is) so I
> >*did* have other things on my mind...not getting shoved into a locker
> >in gym, not getting jumped in the hall, not getting pushed down the
> >stairs... (C:
>
> Reagan's problem was that he didn't understand economics. He simply
> borrowed money and threw it at any problem. Run up the credit cards,
> increase the national debt through the roof, pretend the days of wine
> and roses are never going to end.
>
> Unfortunately, they do end and Clinton (and every president for the
> next century) is going to have to deal with it.

Last time I checked, the Democrats had control of the House every year that
Reagan was president. If there were any spending bills that came down the
pipeline that the Democrats didn't like, all they would have had to do was
not pass them. So, there's plenty of blame to go around for deficit
spending in the 80's. Of course, we were fighting the Cold War in earnest,
so some level of borrowing would be expected. During a booming economy and
time of relative peace, Clinton added about $1.5 trillion to the debt while
he was in office. So, spending more money than we have isn't limited to
just Republicans. IMHO, both the right and left are equally guilty of being
too loose with the pursestrings. If we limited expenditures to those
specified in the Constitution as the federal governments responsibilities,
lord knows how much we could chop off.

todd

Nicely said, Mike.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 17:05:20 GMT, "Mike Zuchick"
<[email protected]> wrote:

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > We can vote and hope. Clinton was stupid. Reagan was senile. Fillmore
> > was incompetent. But George W. Bush is the only deliberately *evil*
> > bastard who has ever occupied the White House!
> >
> >
> I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but he's the first one that
> really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.

to those of us who don't live in the US Reagan could be pretty scary at
times, all that Evil Empire rhetoric seems familiar in current times.

Peter

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <1g0z9kq.1dequ4bnro6msN%[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> > > I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but he's the first one that
> > > really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
> >
> > to those of us who don't live in the US Reagan could be pretty scary at
> > times, all that Evil Empire rhetoric seems familiar in current times.
> >
> The difference in my mind is that George is a member of the religious
> right. He KNOWS he's right!
>
> Ronnie wasn't doing anything that Kruschev didn't do - remember "we will
> bury you"?

the cold war phrase that worried me more than most was "better dead than
red".

Peter

Difficult to believe that a "college graduate" hasn't figured out that the
world (or the country) doesn't owe him a living.

One of those "new age" majors, was it?

"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I don't know if he is but Bush better listen. I supported the
> Republicans but they are shooting themselves in the foot with their BS
> on education and the economy. This from college graduate of 3 months
> who can't find a job. And if you think I am the exception, you are
> trolling or living on another planet. Look at the unemployment
> numbers. Staying about the same right? Wrong. After so many months,
> those who were listed as unemployed simply drop off the list. Convient
> isn't it? Bush better take care of the people who put him in office or
> get the hell out of there ot they will put him out. No threat. Just
> like to eat and do a little woodworking with money. He wants to make
> it tough on teachers- make sure they are "qualified". If he will wake
> up, he will find out that we have a severe SHORTAGE of teachers.
> Normally you don't get tough on people if you don't have an awfully
> good supply which we don't. So, yes, Bush better listen.
>

If it is truly information you seek .. .. . try to figure out ONE THING
Slick Willie actually did to make the economy good .. .. .. the
high-dollar market was actually a hoax predicated on corporate lies that
his administration officials SHOULD have uncovered and dealt with .. .. ..
the economy has not taken as bad a turn for the worse as many would have
you believe, it simply was never as good as we all thought it to be.

PC Gameplayer wrote:

> I'm not trying to troll here, and I ask this genuinely seeking an
> answer...
>
>

--
I AM NOT PARANOID .. .. .. but EVERYONE thinks I am !! !! !!

<<<__ Bob __>>>

I suspect that the time constant for significant economic actions within
the system that is our government is several years, perhaps 3 to 5. What
was set in motion during Reagan's administration in all likelihood
didn't bear fruit until Clinton's reign. Clinton then milked it and got
out just in time.

Phil

PC Gameplayer wrote:
> I'm not trying to troll here, and I ask this genuinely seeking an
> answer...
>
> In another thread, someone said:
>
>
>>You can thank Reagan for the economy that Clinton inherited.
>
>
> I've always heard this, and it's always bothered me. Is there any
> real proof of this? I know Reagan cut taxes, and I know there was a
> good economy during the Clinton administration (at least the first 7
> years, maybe 7.5). But was this a true cause and effect relationship?
> Seems like if anyone would have prospered, it would have been GHWB.
> Of course I was in high school at the time (Reagan era, that is) so I
> *did* have other things on my mind...not getting shoved into a locker
> in gym, not getting jumped in the hall, not getting pushed down the
> stairs... (C:
>
> Jim

And Florida, according to that same article... we call them "migrant
workers". :>(
If any readers here can gain access to the magazine, perhaps they will have
the same "eye-opener" I did.
Tom

<snip>> Slavery does exist, but you're a bit off accusing China. Since its
admission
> to the World Trade Organization China has gone out of its way to meet
> international standards *within its borders.* That last part is the key.
The
> Chinese gangs engaged in people smuggling are another story.
>
> The economic slavery hotspots at the moment are in Sudan, Mauritania,
> Bangladesh, American Samoa, Los Angeles, Pakistan, parts of India, Côte
> d'Ivoire and United Arab Emirates, according to the International Labor
> Organization and UNICEF.
> -- Ernie
>
>

I suppose if you don't like the subject, you shouldn't read it.
Tom
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> --
> Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
> place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.
>
> Jim in NC
>
>

<PLONK>

<snipped>
> And you have nothing better to do than count my posts? Make that 9.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

He's in mine.
Tom

> All it'll do is get you added to a lot of kill files :-).
>
> --
> Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Well, I came to this group seeking some bandsaw jig tips, but I just
can't let this topic pass...

> "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and
> drained
> > pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
> > and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
> > hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
> >
> > Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> > history.

We can vote and hope. Clinton was stupid. Reagan was senile. Fillmore
was incompetent. But George W. Bush is the only deliberately *evil*
bastard who has ever occupied the White House!

Everything that Bush and his lizard-eyed minions have done is
calculated to destroy individual liberty and make corporate "persons"
the dominant species on this planet. Their tools are groundless fear,
"patriotic" prejudice, and diabolical misdirection.

While Tom Ridge babbles in "public service announcements" about duct
tape and plastic sheeting, uninsured children are dying of simple
infections. Survival of the affluent is Bush's philosophy, and he is
hastening that "natural" selection process.

Bush has done nothing to foster job creation. His economic agenda is
designed solely to maximize corporate profits. There is no logical
connection between jobs and profits. Indeed, lower payrolls mean
bigger profits.

The Patriot Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would send our
Founding Fathers rushing to their muskets.

Bush is the antichrist. We need an exorcist.

You're the one that hasn't figured out how to use a filter and you are
calling others ignorent?
"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Put OT in the subject line, like it says in the FAQ for this group.
>
> And I don't read them, but downloading them and having to skip them using
> next unread, is a waste of time. Besides, it bothers me that so many are
so
> ignorant.
>
>
>
>

Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I don't know if he is but Bush better listen. I supported the
> Republicans but they are shooting themselves in the foot with their BS
> on education and the economy. This from college graduate of 3 months
> who can't find a job. And if you think I am the exception, you are
> trolling or living on another planet. Look at the unemployment
> numbers. Staying about the same right? Wrong. After so many months,
> those who were listed as unemployed simply drop off the list. Convient
> isn't it? Bush better take care of the people who put him in office or
> get the hell out of there ot they will put him out. No threat. Just
> like to eat and do a little woodworking with money. He wants to make
> it tough on teachers- make sure they are "qualified". If he will wake
> up, he will find out that we have a severe SHORTAGE of teachers.
> Normally you don't get tough on people if you don't have an awfully
> good supply which we don't. So, yes, Bush better listen.

Since when is there a teacher shortage? I know a lot of people with
teaching degrees that are subing for 2 or 3 years waiting for a
full-time position and others working in Parochial schools at half the
public school salary. The only places that I know of with shortages
are inner-city schools where it is too damn dangerous and futile to
teach and areas that pay teachers $20,000 a year. Hell, even in West
Virginia where a teacher with a Masters Degree (plus 45 hours) and 31
years experience only makes $46,000 (my sister), they don't have a
shortage. Like most things in a capitalist society, when a shortage
looms supply increases. A few years ago a teacher shortage loomed and
was in all the papers. Thousands of teachers hired in the late '60s
and early '70s were set to retire. Gloom and doom abounded. Like a
miracle, however, teacher colleges began to fill up and ground out
lots of new teachers. Now many a school district and many a state are
offering early retirement incentives to teachers to reduce the number
of higher paid senior staff with lower paid (and less burned-out)
newer staff. In Pennsylvania the retirement system was changed to
allow a 55 year old (or older) teacher with 30 years experience to
retire and get 75% of their pre-retirement salary (it increases by
2.5% for each additional year of experience - no cap). This is for
teachers making an average of $78,000 with that many years experience.
I certainly think that we can afford to expect these people to be
"highly qualified". You should also take a look at what it means to be
"highly qualified" in this law. It is little more than a 4 year degree
and a rather simple test in the subject matter to be taught to be sure
that you actually know the subject. The federal law that you are
referring to does not even require that the teacher have a teaching
degree or have had any classes on how to teach. No, I don't think that
George is really asking too much of those to whom we want to entrust
our children.

Dave Hall

[email protected] (David Hakala) wrote in message
>
> We can vote and hope. Clinton was stupid. Reagan was senile. Fillmore
> was incompetent. But George W. Bush is the only deliberately *evil*
> bastard who has ever occupied the White House!
>
> Everything that Bush and his lizard-eyed minions have done is
> calculated to destroy individual liberty and make corporate "persons"
> the dominant species on this planet. Their tools are groundless fear,
> "patriotic" prejudice, and diabolical misdirection.
>
> While Tom Ridge babbles in "public service announcements" about duct
> tape and plastic sheeting, uninsured children are dying of simple
> infections. Survival of the affluent is Bush's philosophy, and he is
> hastening that "natural" selection process.
>
> Bush has done nothing to foster job creation. His economic agenda is
> designed solely to maximize corporate profits. There is no logical
> connection between jobs and profits. Indeed, lower payrolls mean
> bigger profits.
>
> The Patriot Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would send our
> Founding Fathers rushing to their muskets.
>
> Bush is the antichrist. We need an exorcist.

WHEW!!!!!!

...and I thought it was the drugs, but no - I must have really seen
GWB's head spin completely around and green pea soup come spouting out
after the speech :)


I y'all thought anti-Clintonites were way off the deep end.

Dave Hall

"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<jQr7b.132586
> >
> > Did you forget Johnson that lied to us?
>
> Not at all. But Johnson was sincerely puzzled as to why Americans didn't
> back his war. White House handlers kept him far away from reality. Johnson
> also somewhat redeemed himself with the Great Society social programs, and
> was honorable enough not to run for re-election. Nixon was genuinely evil.
> -- Ernie

I am sorry, but I can't believe that anyone can refer to Lyndon
Johnson, the herdballer of all hardballers, as some poor little waif
who wqas misled by his "handlers" and to even use honorable in the
same paragraph as LBJ.....whew!!! Just because it wasn't fashionable
for the press to bandy about all the nasties of an administration
before Watergate showed that it sold papers doesn't mean they didn't
happen. LBJ was hardnosed, hardball and hardheaded. He simply knew
better than to fight the losing battle that the 1968 primaries had
become for him when RFK entered the ring. Honorable my as*.

Dave Hall

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Well, I came to this group seeking some bandsaw jig tips, but I just
> can't let this topic pass...
>
> > "joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and
> > drained
> > > pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
> > > and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
> > > hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
> > >
> > > Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> > > history.
>
> We can vote and hope. Clinton was stupid.

Let's see, turned down the opportunity to get Bin Laden, what? 5
times. Treated the first world trade center bombing as a criminal
matter. Treated bombing of the Cole and Khobar towers the same. In so
doing, emboldened the terrorists to carry out even more bold attacks
culiminating in 9/11/01 because they thought the US lacked the will or
stomach for strong action (by the terrorist's own words, they indicated
this). Launched cruise missiles into a pharmeceutical plant when his
inability to keep his privates in his pants and subsequent perjery in a
court case threatened his presidency. Launched more cruise missiles
into Iraq (ostensibly to destroy those non-existent WMD's) when his
popularity was waning again later. Seems to fit the definition of evil
and cunning here.

> Reagan was senile. Fillmore
> was incompetent. But George W. Bush is the only deliberately *evil*
> bastard who has ever occupied the White House!
>
> Everything that Bush and his lizard-eyed minions have done is
> calculated to destroy individual liberty and make corporate "persons"
> the dominant species on this planet. Their tools are groundless fear,
> "patriotic" prejudice, and diabolical misdirection.
>
> While Tom Ridge babbles in "public service announcements" about duct
> tape and plastic sheeting, uninsured children are dying of simple
> infections. Survival of the affluent is Bush's philosophy, and he is
> hastening that "natural" selection process.
>

i.e. the government (read taxpayers) owe everyone. The majority of
citizens are incompetent boobs who are unable to even take a breath in
the morning without the government providing them the air and the
instructions on how to inhale.

> Bush has done nothing to foster job creation. His economic agenda is
> designed solely to maximize corporate profits. There is no logical
> connection between jobs and profits. Indeed, lower payrolls mean
> bigger profits.
>

Only if workers are willing to work for those lower wages. I'm sure
the opposing plan of taxing the snot out of anyone who is producing
anything would prove more successful. Not.


> The Patriot Act and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act would send our
> Founding Fathers rushing to their muskets.
>

The patriot act has some elements that are of legitimate concern. You
must be correct about Bush being evil incarnate and the anti-christ with
the ability to alter the time stream for the latter charge to hold
water, since THE DIGITAL MILLENIUM COPYRIGHT ACT WAS ENACTED IN 1998!!!



> Bush is the antichrist. We need an exorcist.
>

Evidence of visceral hatred for Bush noted. Nothing this president
could do would change your mind, the fact that he allowed Ted Kennedy to
write the education bill, has caved on the majority of domestic issues
just doesn't even have a hint of redeeming value in your eyes.

"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and drained
> pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
> and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
> hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
>
> Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> history.

Who really cares? Is Bush really that bad? What better choice did we
have than Bush? Gore? Did Gore realize he couldn't win Florida? It's
all a farce, just a matter of picking the lessor of two evils. Like
almost all Americans, as long as I'm working, can make my mortgage
payment, can afford and have available the best SUV's, keep gas prices
low so I can fill 'er up, can follow my kids around to various soccer
games/dance rehearsals/school plays/etc, I don't really give a rat's
ass who or what they are doing. Getting older has shown me the value
of looking the other way, it works for 95% of the country so it can't
be wrong...right? Should any of those things I listed change in my
life, maybe I might take a closer look, until then I'll stay
preoccupied with me.

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...

> > Who really cares? Is Bush really that bad? What better choice did we
> > have than Bush? Gore? Did Gore realize he couldn't win Florida? It's
> > all a farce, just a matter of picking the lessor of two evils. Like
> > almost all Americans, as long as I'm working, can make my mortgage
> > payment, can afford and have available the best SUV's, keep gas prices
> > low so I can fill 'er up, can follow my kids around to various soccer
> > games/dance rehearsals/school plays/etc, I don't really give a rat's
> > ass who or what they are doing.
> >
> Now THAT'S a troll!!!

I was being sarcastic. I see it was lost on you!

Makes no sense debating in a f'in woodworking NG about politics. Makes
no sense debating it in any NG for that matter. 'We' need to get our
hands dirty to straighten things out in this country. Unfortunately,
nobody is willing to do that because there are bills to pay and stuff
to buy.

If crying about the state of the nation could be fixed in these NGs
then fantastic. But truth is it won't and is basically a waste of time
for everyone involved.

So in closing...kiss my TROLL ass. Thank you.

"Thomas Bunetta" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The current issue of National Geographic magazine has an interesting
article
> about slavery today... many Chinese and Mexicans (and others) are actively
> in slavery and this accounts for the ability they have in selling their
> goods too us so cheaply...
> Perhaps boycotting any products made by those humans (including SMALL
> children) kept in a deplorable condition as described in the above
> referenced article or making the world more aware of the continued
existence
> of organized slavery would result in more mfg. coming back into our
country.

Slavery does exist, but you're a bit off accusing China. Since its admission
to the World Trade Organization China has gone out of its way to meet
international standards *within its borders.* That last part is the key. The
Chinese gangs engaged in people smuggling are another story.

The economic slavery hotspots at the moment are in Sudan, Mauritania,
Bangladesh, American Samoa, Los Angeles, Pakistan, parts of India, Côte
d'Ivoire and United Arab Emirates, according to the International Labor
Organization and UNICEF.
-- Ernie

Hi Dave:

The 'leave no child behind' act does do what you outline. But it
seems to me to be backwards.

How many 'highly qualified' teachers have you had that had no clue how
to get thier knowledge across?

I think we'd be better off with an enhtusiastic and proficient English
*teacher* teaching high school physics than a 24 year old with a PhD
and no clue how to teach. K-12 subject matter is pretty fundemetal
stuff, not that much of a mystery or really too tough. It's /teaching
it/ that is tough.

Steve Vegos





>On 8 Sep 2003 06:33:14 -0700, [email protected] (David Hall) wrote:

>I certainly think that we can afford to expect these people to be
>"highly qualified". You should also take a look at what it means to be
>"highly qualified" in this law. It is little more than a 4 year degree
>and a rather simple test in the subject matter to be taught to be sure
>that you actually know the subject. The federal law that you are
>referring to does not even require that the teacher have a teaching
>degree or have had any classes on how to teach.
>
>Dave Hall

"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > I guess ignorant would be one that makes 7 posts to a thread that he
does
> > not wantto read....
> >
> > Is this an exercise in "Do as I say and Not as I do?"
>
> And you have nothing better to do than count my posts? Make that 9.
> --
> Jim in NC


I see that you assumed that you were the one I was talking about... ;~)

"George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:6%[email protected]...
> You are a piece of work. You don't know that education is paid for by
> state/local taxes, and you expect anyone to value your opinions?
>
> How about another year of schooling.
>
> As to arrogance, I still see a lying philanderer shaking his finger
and
> denying same. THAT was arrogance.


Those "English as a Second Language" courses aren't working out are
they? He never said that the Federal Government pays for education. He
compared the cost that is paid for education and roadwork.



> "Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > You are right. He doesn't. But he does owe the American peole
> > SOMETHING. WE put him there.But since you are so rich, please share
> > some of your wealth with others. 87 Billion is $30 for EVERY man
woman
> > and child in the US. It is more than we spend on our total
education.
> > More than we spend on our roads. I am not knocking America or the
> > Republicans; I am faulting Bush for becoming so puffed up with pride
> > and arrogance that he can't see straight. In the next few weeks, he
is
> > going to gain understanding I believe. He shot himself in the foot
> > last night.
>
>

"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are right. He doesn't. But he does owe the American peole
> SOMETHING. WE put him there.But since you are so rich, please share
> some of your wealth with others. 87 Billion is $30 for EVERY man woman
> and child in the US. It is more than we spend on our total education.
> More than we spend on our roads. I am not knocking America or the
> Republicans; I am faulting Bush for becoming so puffed up with pride
> and arrogance that he can't see straight. In the next few weeks, he is
> going to gain understanding I believe. He shot himself in the foot
> last night.

That's funny. The Department of Education's own web site states that for
2002-2003, approx 770 billion will be spent on education. If I was inclined
to look it up, I'd also bet that $87B wouldn't touch what is spent on road
construction in this country.

todd

"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Where is the OT on the subject line, so I don't have to read this crap?

You know, there's nothing stopping you from adding "OT" to the subject line
when you respond. Plus I always get a chuckle when someone objects to
content in a ng, then copies the entire thread in their response.

todd

I'm not trying to troll here, and I ask this genuinely seeking an
answer...

In another thread, someone said:

> You can thank Reagan for the economy that Clinton inherited.

I've always heard this, and it's always bothered me. Is there any
real proof of this? I know Reagan cut taxes, and I know there was a
good economy during the Clinton administration (at least the first 7
years, maybe 7.5). But was this a true cause and effect relationship?
Seems like if anyone would have prospered, it would have been GHWB.
Of course I was in high school at the time (Reagan era, that is) so I
*did* have other things on my mind...not getting shoved into a locker
in gym, not getting jumped in the hall, not getting pushed down the
stairs... (C:

Jim

"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> You are right. He doesn't. But he does owe the American peole
> SOMETHING. WE put him there.But since you are so rich, please share
> some of your wealth with others. 87 Billion is $30 for EVERY man woman
> and child in the US. It is more than we spend on our total education.

I beg to differ with that math. I wish we could educate children for $30 per
capita. By the end of the month I will have to pay $1635 for my annual
school tax bill. by your number, I am grossly paying more than my fair
share.

> More than we spend on our roads. I am not knocking America or the
> Republicans; I am faulting Bush for becoming so puffed up with pride
> and arrogance that he can't see straight. In the next few weeks, he is
> going to gain understanding I believe. He shot himself in the foot
> last night.

While the fairness of of tax structures in my community is debatable, as is
Bush's arrogance, your objectivity (or lack there of) is not.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> We can vote and hope. Clinton was stupid. Reagan was senile. Fillmore
> was incompetent. But George W. Bush is the only deliberately *evil*
> bastard who has ever occupied the White House!
>
>
I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but he's the first one that
really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and
drained
> pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
> and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
> hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
>
> Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> history.

Maybe it's time to get some of those "Don't Blame Me,
I Voted For Gore" bumper stickers. Or "Nader" or
whomever your choice was in 2000.

Dennis Vogel

In article <1g0z9kq.1dequ4bnro6msN%[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > I don't know if "evil" is the right word, but he's the first one that
> > really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
>
> to those of us who don't live in the US Reagan could be pretty scary at
> times, all that Evil Empire rhetoric seems familiar in current times.
>
The difference in my mind is that George is a member of the religious
right. He KNOWS he's right!

Ronnie wasn't doing anything that Kruschev didn't do - remember "we will
bury you"?

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> > Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> > history.
>
> Who really cares? Is Bush really that bad? What better choice did we
> have than Bush? Gore? Did Gore realize he couldn't win Florida? It's
> all a farce, just a matter of picking the lessor of two evils. Like
> almost all Americans, as long as I'm working, can make my mortgage
> payment, can afford and have available the best SUV's, keep gas prices
> low so I can fill 'er up, can follow my kids around to various soccer
> games/dance rehearsals/school plays/etc, I don't really give a rat's
> ass who or what they are doing.
>
Now THAT'S a troll!!!

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> If crying about the state of the nation could be fixed in these NGs
> then fantastic. But truth is it won't and is basically a waste of time
> for everyone involved.
>
I see you have time to waste as well :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

You mean you couldn't tell from the Subject?
Really? What, you thought it was a woodworking
accident report?

Dennis Vogel

"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Where is the OT on the subject line, so I don't have to read this crap?

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> You are right, here is the OT, and guess what. I'll continue to bitch when
> I feel like it
> --
> Jim in NC
>
All it'll do is get you added to a lot of kill files :-).

--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and drained
> pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
> and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
> hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
>
> Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
> history.

You have the ultimate right to your warped opinion........

Morgans wrote:

> Where is the OT on the subject line, so I don't have to read this crap?
>

Umm, you really need an OT in the subject line to know that something
with a title like "Bush destroyed himself tonight" is off topic? I
suppose if you anthropomorphise your yard ornamentation and the fact
that bushes are made of wood, although not enough for real woodworking,
you might possibly think that such a topic could be related to
woodworking -- but it's kind of a stretch, don't ya' think?

I don't know if he is but Bush better listen. I supported the
Republicans but they are shooting themselves in the foot with their BS
on education and the economy. This from college graduate of 3 months
who can't find a job. And if you think I am the exception, you are
trolling or living on another planet. Look at the unemployment
numbers. Staying about the same right? Wrong. After so many months,
those who were listed as unemployed simply drop off the list. Convient
isn't it? Bush better take care of the people who put him in office or
get the hell out of there ot they will put him out. No threat. Just
like to eat and do a little woodworking with money. He wants to make
it tough on teachers- make sure they are "qualified". If he will wake
up, he will find out that we have a severe SHORTAGE of teachers.
Normally you don't get tough on people if you don't have an awfully
good supply which we don't. So, yes, Bush better listen.


On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 01:11:43 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>You are trolling here right?
>
>
>
>"joe" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Just when he needed to talk to the nation about their lost jobs and
>drained
>> pensions and the fake economy -- he buries himself by promising new roads
>> and new schools and reconstruction for IRAQ. Billions and billions of your
>> hard-earned tax dollars...for someone else.
>>
>> Goodbye, George. They'll remember this day as the day you faded into
>> history.
>>
>>
>>
>

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
> >
> >You're forgetting Richard Nixon, who kept Vietnam going for 4 years so he
> >could use his "secret plan to end the war" as a re-election gimmick?
Shame!
> >-- Ernie
>
> Did you forget Johnson that lied to us?

Not at all. But Johnson was sincerely puzzled as to why Americans didn't
back his war. White House handlers kept him far away from reality. Johnson
also somewhat redeemed himself with the Great Society social programs, and
was honorable enough not to run for re-election. Nixon was genuinely evil.
-- Ernie

Parsing noted. You from Arkansas?

When someone lists Federal Education spending and says that's what "we
spend" for education, he's a liar or a fool.

By the way, Federal highway funds are only a small portion of what we spend
for highways, so which one are you?

"Norm Abram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "George" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:6%[email protected]...
> > You are a piece of work. You don't know that education is paid for by
> > state/local taxes, and you expect anyone to value your opinions?
> >
> > How about another year of schooling.
> >
> > As to arrogance, I still see a lying philanderer shaking his finger
> and
> > denying same. THAT was arrogance.
>
>
> Those "English as a Second Language" courses aren't working out are
> they? He never said that the Federal Government pays for education. He
> compared the cost that is paid for education and roadwork.
>
>
>
> > "Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > You are right. He doesn't. But he does owe the American peole
> > > SOMETHING. WE put him there.But since you are so rich, please share
> > > some of your wealth with others. 87 Billion is $30 for EVERY man
> woman
> > > and child in the US. It is more than we spend on our total
> education.
> > > More than we spend on our roads. I am not knocking America or the
> > > Republicans; I am faulting Bush for becoming so puffed up with pride
> > > and arrogance that he can't see straight. In the next few weeks, he
> is
> > > going to gain understanding I believe. He shot himself in the foot
> > > last night.
> >
> >
>
>

You are right. He doesn't. But he does owe the American peole
SOMETHING. WE put him there.But since you are so rich, please share
some of your wealth with others. 87 Billion is $30 for EVERY man woman
and child in the US. It is more than we spend on our total education.
More than we spend on our roads. I am not knocking America or the
Republicans; I am faulting Bush for becoming so puffed up with pride
and arrogance that he can't see straight. In the next few weeks, he is
going to gain understanding I believe. He shot himself in the foot
last night.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 10:47:27 GMT, "George"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Difficult to believe that a "college graduate" hasn't figured out that the
>world (or the country) doesn't owe him a living.
>
>One of those "new age" majors, was it?
>
>"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I don't know if he is but Bush better listen. I supported the
>> Republicans but they are shooting themselves in the foot with their BS
>> on education and the economy. This from college graduate of 3 months
>> who can't find a job. And if you think I am the exception, you are
>> trolling or living on another planet. Look at the unemployment
>> numbers. Staying about the same right? Wrong. After so many months,
>> those who were listed as unemployed simply drop off the list. Convient
>> isn't it? Bush better take care of the people who put him in office or
>> get the hell out of there ot they will put him out. No threat. Just
>> like to eat and do a little woodworking with money. He wants to make
>> it tough on teachers- make sure they are "qualified". If he will wake
>> up, he will find out that we have a severe SHORTAGE of teachers.
>> Normally you don't get tough on people if you don't have an awfully
>> good supply which we don't. So, yes, Bush better listen.
>>
>

On 9 Sep 2003 13:17:22 -0700, [email protected] (PC Gameplayer) wrote:

>I've always heard this, and it's always bothered me. Is there any
>real proof of this? I know Reagan cut taxes, and I know there was a
>good economy during the Clinton administration (at least the first 7
>years, maybe 7.5). But was this a true cause and effect relationship?
> Seems like if anyone would have prospered, it would have been GHWB.
>Of course I was in high school at the time (Reagan era, that is) so I
>*did* have other things on my mind...not getting shoved into a locker
>in gym, not getting jumped in the hall, not getting pushed down the
>stairs... (C:

Reagan's problem was that he didn't understand economics. He simply
borrowed money and threw it at any problem. Run up the credit cards,
increase the national debt through the roof, pretend the days of wine
and roses are never going to end.

Unfortunately, they do end and Clinton (and every president for the
next century) is going to have to deal with it.

Yep. Don't know who started it but I made the mistake of responding
when I was tired and it took off from there.

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:29:51 -0400, "Morgans" <[email protected]>
wrote:

This isn't rec.politics.argue.bitch

Take it somewhere else
--
Jim in NC

Ramsey <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't know if he is but Bush better listen. I supported the
>Republicans but they are shooting themselves in the foot with their BS
>on education and the economy. This from college graduate of 3 months
>who can't find a job.

And your major was?

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
>
>You're forgetting Richard Nixon, who kept Vietnam going for 4 years so he
>could use his "secret plan to end the war" as a re-election gimmick? Shame!
>-- Ernie

Did you forget Johnson that lied to us?

Wes
--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.


"Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >> really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
> > >
> > >You're forgetting Richard Nixon, who kept Vietnam going for 4 years so
he
> > >could use his "secret plan to end the war" as a re-election gimmick?
> Shame!
> > >-- Ernie
> >
> > Did you forget Johnson that lied to us?
>
> Not at all. But Johnson was sincerely puzzled as to why Americans didn't
> back his war. White House handlers kept him far away from reality. Johnson
> also somewhat redeemed himself with the Great Society social programs, and
> was honorable enough not to run for re-election. Nixon was genuinely
evil.
> -- Ernie
>
>

--
Is there no way that you can keep yourself from using this newsgroup as a
place to vent on politics? Wrong place, wrong time.

Jim in NC

Where is the OT on the subject line, so I don't have to read this crap?

"Ramsey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> No man is perfect. I DO believe that we need to take care of our own
> first mainly so that we can THEN help others. We do NOT have a
> fluorishing economy- except maybe by those cold callous people who
> have jobs and have forgotten what it is like to be unemployed. Which
> telephone company was it that was moving hundred/thousands jobs to
> India? Anyway, I think Mr. Bush needs to remember his people and take
> care of them FIRST. If he doesn't, he will end up using ALL his
> energies trying to back up and turn around the economy and wasting
> time trying to get re-elected. All he has to do is straighten out some
> of the problems he has here. I think he better watch the economy
> closely; it is not is as good a shape as he would like to think it
> is. Iraqi s HIS main concern; I do not think it is the main concern of
> most of the Ameriucan public. That is NOT to say we don't care; we
> have problemjs also that may hit him from behind if he is not VERY
> careful. And the economy is propbably number one on the list. Bush has
> done some great things; I voted for him and so far, I think I vote
> correctly. But that is not set in stone and can change. And I am one
> of many. Leaders are not automatically great; they seem to assume they
> are. Leaders have to CONTINUE to EARN our respect. This is a day by
> day process. But Iraq is NOT number on his worries; he has others and
> he needs to prioritize them.
>
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 04:05:13 GMT, Mark & Juanita
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <jQr7b.132586$0v4.9696035@bgtnsc04-
> >news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, [email protected] says...
> >>
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >> > "Ernie Jurick" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >> really scares me - and I remember back to FDR.
> >> > >
> >> > >You're forgetting Richard Nixon, who kept Vietnam going for 4 years
so he
> >> > >could use his "secret plan to end the war" as a re-election gimmick?
> >> Shame!
> >> > >-- Ernie
> >> >
> >> > Did you forget Johnson that lied to us?
> >>
> >> Not at all. But Johnson was sincerely puzzled as to why Americans
didn't
> >> back his war. White House handlers kept him far away from reality.
Johnson
> >> also somewhat redeemed himself with the Great Society social programs,
> >
> > .. so the idea of taking from one person and giving to another is
> >honorable in your opinion. Here the Dems are howling about 68 billion
> >dollars when after TRILLIONS of dollars spent on the "great society"
> >programs, the targeted people are still poor, their plight is no better
> >than it was -- except they now constitute a dependent class and a voting
> >block for a particular political party.
> >
> >> and
> >> was honorable enough not to run for re-election. Nixon was genuinely
evil.
> >> -- Ernie
> >>
> >>
> >>
>

Put OT in the subject line, like it says in the FAQ for this group.

And I don't read them, but downloading them and having to skip them using
next unread, is a waste of time. Besides, it bothers me that so many are so
ignorant.

"Morgans" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Where is the OT on the subject line, so I don't have to read this crap?

Excuse me, NOT read, just want to have it stop appearing on my time, as it
is a waste of time.

--
Jim in NC

You are right, here is the OT, and guess what. I'll continue to bitch when
I feel like it
--
Jim in NC

>
>
> I guess ignorant would be one that makes 7 posts to a thread that he does
> not wantto read....
>
> Is this an exercise in "Do as I say and Not as I do?"

And you have nothing better to do than count my posts? Make that 9.
--
Jim in NC

Phil <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm particularly perturbed now since I need about 100 sheets of plywood
>and have found that to give Iraq a standard of living they didn't have
>before the war I'm going to pay dearly. Where's the equity there?
>
>Phil

Have you considered waiting on your project? I have a few things I
want to do and next year is looking like a plan.

Wes

--
Reply to:
Whiskey Echo Sierra Sierra AT Gee Tee EYE EYE dot COM
Lycos address is a spam trap.

"Mike Zuchick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> --
> Most of our
> Textile Jobs are now in Mexico and God knows where else

Actually the American textile industry, like agrobusiness, soaks up a
sizeable chunk of corporate welfare in the form of subsidies and
protectionist tariffs. That's one of the things the Doha round of talks
presently being held in Cancun is supposed to fix, although it's unlikely to
happen now that Bush has us so deep in the red and it's election time again.

If we stopped pretending we had a viable textile industry and dropped the
tariffs, Africa could supply the US with cotton and cloth, while at the same
time giving the Africans a shot at economic stability, and saving the US 35
billion in cotton subsidies alone (three times our foreign aid to ALL of
Africa in 2001). That way they could become trade partners rather than
welfare cases. There was a time when American efficiency made it the textile
king, but those days are long gone. Agriculture is even worse. Twenty-five
cents of every dollar of farm income comes from you and me in the form of
subsidies. Not to the small farmer, but to giants like ConAgra. Only Europe
and Japan have bigger subsidies.
-- Ernie