Interesting question

"Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote

> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics, would you have approved?

No, but I didn't approve of his, "Bring it on" comment either.

> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
> thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

No, but I didn't think much of his comment, "You're doing a good job,
Brownie" either.

> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
> narcissistic and tacky?

Are you sure that's what was on the Video? Just think of the laughs the
Queen would have enjoyed watching a video of The Shrub's speeches.

> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
> have approved?

Nope. To my knowledge, none of America's presidents have ever bowed to
foreign potentates.

> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slip?

What language does Bush speak?

> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
> people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
> you have approved?

Well, one thing about it; they were at least smart enough to do their own
taxes, something not many in Bush's cabinet could claim.

> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
> de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
> of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
> would you have winced in embarrassment?

Are you sure it wasn't "Cinco de Mayo"?

> If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof"
> of what a dunce he is?

Well, duh !

> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
> single tree on "Earth Day," would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

George Bush wouldn't have to do anything more than he has already to
convince me that he's a hypocrite.

> If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
> Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
> they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?

You haven't really kept up with the rest of that story, have you.

> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
> laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
> own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If anyone ever needed a teleprompter to keep himself on message, to keep
from mauling the English language and to keep from making an ass of himself,
it has to be George Bush.

> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
> throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
> in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

What news sources are you depending on for your info?

> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
> would you have approved?

Nope, and I don't approve of Obama's act either.

> If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
> have approved?

No. I don't approve of budget busting.

> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
> years, would you have approved?

You're being redundant.

> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM
> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
> have approved?

Oh, hell no!

> If George W. Bush had spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

Damn right, she's a cutie.

> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
> and impressive?

In contrast to Bush? Uh...brains, education, ability. Too bad his
political philosophy is just as far to the left as Bush's was to the right.

Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
> this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
> come up with an answer.
>
> G.S.

On Jul 14, 6:29=A0pm, "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Joe" wrote:
> > Very Interesting questions.
>
> Don't give up what ever it is you are smoking and/or drinking.
>
> Lew

Lew, you know people can get plenty high without losing their
reasoning ability. Don't encourage the guy to destroy that last brain
cell.

R

On Jul 14, 5:21=A0pm, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Very Interesting questions.

Interesting? really??

Joe, you're a nut-job.

<snip a lotta whining from a buncha losers>

HA! Welcome to my last eight years, ya fuggin losers!

Obama kicked your loser gop asses and we're gonna have years and years
of a BLACK man telling you racist whiteys what to do!

SUCK IT, BITCHES!

ROTFLMAO

I can't wait til the gubbermint is paying to KILL THE UNBORN!

D'ohBoy

"Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:12 -0500, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Very Interesting questions.
>>
>> My personal life does not evolve around Obama, but he fits the "tax
>> and spend" model perfectly.
>
> You get a tax break and he had to spend to clean up Bush's mess maybe you
> should pay more attention.


Hmmm....

Tax and spend dems, where you get services for what is spent or tax and give
it away repubs, where you get nothing for what is spent. The choice is
clear to me.

Ed

"Joe" <[email protected]> writes:

> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's
> "no travel" list in 1981.

Incorrect. It was an Advisory, regrading new Visa requirements, not a "no travel" ban.


http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/travel/cis/southasia/TA_Pakistan1981.pdf

"Chuck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> I agree with you. Many things that are being done are not authorized by
> the Constitution. Ex. over 30 Czars not authorized by Congress and being
> paid with our tax dollars. I think he knows his days are numbered as
> President and that's why he is pushing so much through. I hope we can undo
> the things he and Pelosi have managed to get passed. Nuff said!

You're right, his days are numbered. He has the rest of this term and all of
the next. Chances are high that he will be reelected. By the time of the
next election, the economy will have improved (which would happen whether he
did anything or not). The people, being as wise as they generally are, will
attribute the economic recovery to him and reelect him.

Tom Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:19:16 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tom Watson wrote:
>>>
>>> Republican Slogans For Now And The Future:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Riding The Pine In 2009."
>>>
>>> "Sent To The Pen In 2010."
>>>
>>> "Kept Out Of Heaven In 2011."
>>>
>>> "The Party That's Shelved In 2012."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I dunno. I kinda like: "Today we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny
>> and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine."
>>
>> But it's a little long for a bumper sticker.
>>
>
>
> The last GOP slogan I could get behind was Bush the Elder's:
>
> "A Thousand Pints Of Lite."
>
Bud Lite or Coors Lite?

Ugggh

--
Froz...

Tom Watson wrote:
>
>
> Republican Slogans For Now And The Future:
>
>
> "Riding The Pine In 2009."
>
> "Sent To The Pen In 2010."
>
> "Kept Out Of Heaven In 2011."
>
> "The Party That's Shelved In 2012."
>
>
>

I dunno. I kinda like: "Today we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny
and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine."

But it's a little long for a bumper sticker.

Jack Stein wrote:
> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama.
>
>>> You are still in living in the abstract I see. Bush didn't do it
>>> ever. In fact when Enron asked Bush for a bailout, he laughed at them.
>
>> Please get your facts straight. GM and Chrysler were granted $17.4
>> Billion in
>> loans on December 19, 2008 by the Bush administration. See:
>
> Loans are not the same thing as "bailing out" a company by taking over
> it's assets, stealing from the bond holders and stockholders, bypassing
> the legal system, and taking over the means of production (socialism).
>
> What company did Bush take over and fire the CEO, put them out of
> business, stealing the company from the stockholders and giving it to
> Big Brother and the Unions?
>
> You have Bush stuck up your ass, and he's out fishing, drinking,
> screwing and having a ball. You seem to be too fucking stupid to
> understand that Bush, Clinton and Obama are all the same guy, running at
> different speeds. Bush may have been an anti-American socialist
> bastard, but Obama is now in charge.
>
> At least Obama is an in your face socialist, rather than in your back
> socialist. Same fucking result though. You may be a socialist, or not,
> I don't much care, but running around waving your arms that Bush is a
> dick, and Obama is a god is just too stupid for words...
>
> The good news is, soon, Robotoy will be waiting 18 months for some hack
> to wack his prostate or sew in some pig arteries, even if he sneaks over
> the border to the USSA for some "free" goodies, assuming he's not too
> old for treatment of course.

ROTFLMFAO .. love it, Jack!! The difference between a Demican and a
Republocrat ain't worth the price of a warm bucket of spit.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>>
>> I'm not happy with government bail outs, either. But remember, it
>> was Bush that did it, not Obama. Obama was just cleaning up the mess
>> the same way any investor of that magnitude could have and should
>> have. -- Doug
>
> Actually, as I understand it, the Bush administration provided more of a
> 'bridge loan' than a bail-out. And the loan had no mandates for management
> reorganization or much of anything else. The talk was to 'kick the can
> down the road' in the sense of not obligating or limiting the new
> administration.

I saw it as just another Bush-to-the-rich give-away. First, make it
possible to steal as much as they can and then throw some more their way
after it's discovered that they overreached the bounds of their greed. All
the right-wingers are quick to claim that Obama's bailout has done nothing
for the economy but they never mention anything about the billions that
Henry Paulsen handed out to his Wall Street buddies.

Dave in Houston

"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:12 -0500, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Very Interesting questions.
>
> My personal life does not evolve around Obama, but he fits the "tax
> and spend" model perfectly.

You get a tax break and he had to spend to clean up Bush's mess maybe you
should pay more attention.

On Jul 15, 8:49=A0am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip a lotta whining from a buncha losers>
>
> HA! =A0Welcome to my last eight years, ya fuggin losers!
>
> Obama kicked your loser gop asses and we're gonna have years and years
> of a BLACK man telling you racist whiteys what to do!
>
> SUCK IT, BITCHES!
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> I can't wait til the gubbermint is paying to KILL THE UNBORN!
>
> D'ohBoy

Pwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew...PLOP.....Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

I think Joe nailed hisself a big fish.... well... not a 'really' big
fish....smells like a fish though.....whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Not too shabby for a beginner.

evodawg wrote:

... snip
>>
> Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same as the old
> boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the Banks and
> Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are only pawns
> in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and Multi Corps. that
> make every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm not a liberal....

Seems a strange way for the huge corporations to be running the world --
having their stock taken over by the government, their CEO fired by POTUS,
and the company "re-distributed" to the government and the unions. Yeah,
those corporations, they're pretty powerful and sly, yep.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jul 15, 6:25=A0am, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

> It doesn't matter if he eats babies for breakfast and farts cyanide, he n=
o
> longer has any political power to speak of and if your life sucks it's
> Obama's job to fix it, so GET OVER BUSH.

Personally, I would like to thank you for that.

All the whining, teary eyed children that are still in therapy over
the Bush years would do us all a favor by jumping off the nearest
bridge into freeway traffic.

Robert

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:12:55 -0700, Robatoy wrote:

> On Jul 14, 5:21 pm, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Very Interesting questions.
>
> Interesting? really??
>
> Joe, you're a nut-job.

Was there a full moon last night?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Douglas Johnson wrote:
>
> I'm not happy with government bail outs, either. But remember, it
> was Bush that did it, not Obama. Obama was just cleaning up the mess
> the same way any investor of that magnitude could have and should
> have. -- Doug

Actually, as I understand it, the Bush administration provided more of a
'bridge loan' than a bail-out. And the loan had no mandates for management
reorganization or much of anything else. The talk was to 'kick the can down
the road' in the sense of not obligating or limiting the new administration.

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama.
>
>You are still in living in the abstract I see. Bush didn't do it ever.
> In fact when Enron asked Bush for a bailout, he laughed at them.

Please get your facts straight. GM and Chrysler were granted $17.4 Billion in
loans on December 19, 2008 by the Bush administration. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html?_r=1&hp.

You can also see a more complete list of Bush bailouts at:

http://bailout.propublica.org/main/timeline/index

-- Doug

J. Clarke wrote:
> Len wrote:
>> He won get over it. the questions are now moot. G bush was and is a
>> high functioning mental defective and there is no question about that
>
> It doesn't matter if he eats babies for breakfast and farts cyanide,
> he no longer has any political power to speak of and if your life
> sucks it's Obama's job to fix it, so GET OVER BUSH.

They can't.

On a second date with a lovely woman, I was sitting in her living room while
she stretched a few more muskrat skins or whatever women do when they say
"I'll be ready in just a minute," when I heard her screech: "That goddamn
Bush should learn some history!" (evidently referring to something she heard
on the TV news program).

I replied: "Uh, he has a degree from Yale. In history."

"That's a GODDAMN LIE!" was her retort.

[tappity-tap-tap on her computer]

"Ah, here it is," I said, pointing to the screen. "He also has an MBA from
Harvard."

"THE FUCKIN' REPUBLICANS HAVE TAKEN OVER THE INTERNET!!!" was her reasoned
response as a muskrat skin hit the floor.

Thinking quickly, I concocted a complicated, but believable, excuse for
leaving. Something along the lines of: "I have to go."

I learned three things:
* Google is not necessarily your friend,
* BDS is incurable and potentially fatal, and
* Don't date a manic-depressive.

I only hope a cure is found for BDS. It's for the muskrats.

On Jul 15, 4:09=A0pm, [email protected] (Edward A. Falk) wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
> Phisherman =A0<[email protected]> wrote:
> >My personal life does not evolve around Obama, but he fits the "tax
> >and spend" model perfectly.
>
> I actually prefer that to the "borrow and spend" mentality the
> Republicans seem to favor.

Then you aren't paying attention.

Dave in Houston wrote:
>>
>> Actually, as I understand it, the Bush administration provided more
>> of a 'bridge loan' than a bail-out. And the loan had no mandates for
>> management reorganization or much of anything else. The talk was to
>> 'kick the can down the road' in the sense of not obligating or
>> limiting the new administration.
>
> I saw it as just another Bush-to-the-rich give-away. First, make
> it possible to steal as much as they can and then throw some more
> their way after it's discovered that they overreached the bounds of
> their greed. All the right-wingers are quick to claim that Obama's
> bailout has done nothing for the economy but they never mention
> anything about the billions that Henry Paulsen handed out to his Wall
> Street buddies.

You wouldn't expect him to hand money to his ENEMIES, would you?

As for Paulson having "Wall Street buddies," would you rather a farmer or
airline pilot be Treasury Secretary? Don't forget that his three
predecessors at Goldman-Sachs ( Jon Corzine, Stephen Friedman, and Robert
Rubin) also went on to serve in the government (Rubin as Treasury Secretary
under Clinton).

And, since it's the rich that pay the bulk of the taxes anyway, I look at it
more as a "tax rebate" than anything nefarious.

There seem to be four possibilities on dispensing largesse:

* Tax the poor and give to the rich (bad)
* Tax the rich and give to the poor (bad)
* Tax the rich and give to the rich (good)
* Tax the poor and give to the poor (good)

and a fifth, way-out, possibility:

* Tax nobody and give to nobody

On Jul 15, 10:00 am, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 15, 8:49 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > <snip a lotta whining from a buncha losers>
>
> > HA! Welcome to my last eight years, ya fuggin losers!
>
> > Obama kicked your loser gop asses and we're gonna have years and years
> > of a BLACK man telling you racist whiteys what to do!
>
> > SUCK IT, BITCHES!
>
> > ROTFLMAO
>
> > I can't wait til the gubbermint is paying to KILL THE UNBORN!
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> Pwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew...PLOP.....Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>
> I think Joe nailed hisself a big fish.... well... not a 'really' big
> fish....smells like a fish though.....whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>
> Not too shabby for a beginner.

Bout 215 lb bottom feeder. That's pretty big. Little corn on a
treble hook and bam! Yer trollin' is successful.

;)

D'ohBoy

Joe wrote:
> Very Interesting questions.
> More questions, and this time some_good_ questions.
>
> While some have little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama
> birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the
> issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
>
> *_What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
> New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
>
> So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June
> 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come
> up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
>
> *And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta ,
> and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs
> and Immigration?
>
> *The American people not only deserve to have answers to these
> questions, they must have answers.
>
> It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and
> simple one.
> *Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
> A : Yes, by his own admission.
>
> *Q: What passport did he travel under?
> A: There are only three possibilities.
> 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
> 2) He traveled with a British passport, or
> 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.
>
> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's
> "no travel" list in 1981.
>
> Conclusion:
> When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a
> British passport or an Indonesian passport.
>
> If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
> that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he
> claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would
> tend
> to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held,
> British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian
> step-father in 1967.

No, it wouldn't. A Passport does not imply citizenship in the issuing
country. Britain often issues "Passports of Convenience" and other countries
will issue passports to descendents of their citizens through several
generations back (Israel and Ireland are two examples). Further, it is
possible to "buy" a passport of another country (actually by establishing
residence and making a substantial "investment" in the country). Costa Rica
and Belize are examples.

I have two passports: one from the U.S. and one from another country.
Actually I have a third - a fake passport from British Honduras and anyone
can get one allegedly from Rhodesia, along with supporting documents such as
a driver's license, library card, and other bits of paper.

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>Seems to me that Obama fired the CEO of GM, exactly what any socialist
>dictator should have done, then redistributed the company to the
>government and the unions.

He did. But let's abstract it for a minute. Consider the president of a bank,
who inherits a $15 billion investment from his predecessor. The investment is
going sour, with a $30.9 billion dollar loss and an auditor's statement that
the company continuing survival is "in substantial doubt".

What does he do? Firing the CEO, demanding a plan for continued viability, and
taking the company into bankruptcy when the plan fails would be smart capitalism
and protecting his investors.

>Same subject. In a capitalist society, which we were at one time,
>private citizens owned companies, not the government, and if the
>business failed, it failed. Government buy outs is simply wrong.

I'm not happy with government bail outs, either. But remember, it was Bush that
did it, not Obama. Obama was just cleaning up the mess the same way any
investor of that magnitude could have and should have.
-- Doug

Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>The percentage of GM stock stolen by Obama and redistributed to Big
>Brother and the Unions is 100%. Any common stockholder that owned GM
>common stock lost 100% of it to the government and the unions.

I must have my history confused. Didn't GM go to the government asking for
bailouts? In a private jet, no less? During the Bush administration?

If the government had refused that bailout, how much of the GM common stock
would be lost? 100%.

Creditors end up owning the company after a bankruptcy. Both the union and the
government were major creditors. Nothing was stolen.

I suspect it is going to be a lousy investment for the taxpayers, but that is a
different subject.

-- Doug

Check out this site........
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/passport.asp


Joe wrote:
> Very Interesting questions.
> More questions, and this time some_good_ questions.
>

Joe wrote:
> Very Interesting questions.
> More questions, and this time some_good_ questions.
>
> While some have little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
> issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue
> can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
>
> *_What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
> New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
>
> So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June
> 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up
> with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
>
> *And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and
> Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs
> and Immigration?
>
> *The American people not only deserve to have answers to these
> questions, they must have answers.
>
> It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple one.
>
> *Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
> A : Yes, by his own admission.
>
> *Q: What passport did he travel under?
> A: There are only three possibilities.
> 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
> 2) He traveled with a British passport, or
> 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.
>
> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's
> "no travel" list in 1981.
>
> Conclusion:
> When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a
> British passport or an Indonesian passport.
>
> If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
> that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
> And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to
> prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held,
> British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian
> step-father in 1967.
>
> Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he
> managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and 2008..
>
> Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by
> his speech before Congress
> and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the
> sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4243 (20090714) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>

I agree with you. Many things that are being done are not authorized by
the Constitution. Ex. over 30 Czars not authorized by Congress and being
paid with our tax dollars. I think he knows his days are numbered as
President and that's why he is pushing so much through. I hope we can
undo the things he and Pelosi have managed to get passed. Nuff said!

Gordon Shumway wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:07 -0700, "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> You get a tax break and he had to spend to clean up Bush's mess maybe you
>> should pay more attention.
>
>
> Maybe YOU should pay more attention. Ask yourself these questions:
>
> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
> thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
> narcissistic and tacky?
>
> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slip?
>
> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
> people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
> you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco
> de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
> of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
> would you have winced in embarrassment?
>
> If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof”
> of what a dunce he is?
>
> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
> single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
>
> If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
> Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
> they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
>
> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
> laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
> own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>
> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
> throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
> in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
>
> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
> would you have approved?
>
> If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
> years, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM
> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
>
> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
> and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
> this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
> come up with an answer.
>
> G.S.
Well put...........

Gordon Shumway wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:07 -0700, "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You get a tax break and he had to spend to clean up Bush's mess maybe you
>>should pay more attention.
>
>
> Maybe YOU should pay more attention. Ask yourself these questions:
>
> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
> thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
> narcissistic and tacky?
>
> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slip?
>
> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
> people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
> you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco
> de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
> of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
> would you have winced in embarrassment?
>
> If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof”
> of what a dunce he is?
>
> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
> single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
>
> If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
> Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
> they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
>
> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
> laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
> own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>
> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
> throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
> in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
>
> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
> would you have approved?
>
> If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
> years, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM
> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
>
> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
> and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
> this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
> come up with an answer.
>
PERFECT!!!!!! Cant wait to hear an answer to the above!
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Joe wrote:

> Very Interesting questions.
> More questions, and this time some_good_ questions.
>
> While some have little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama
> birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the
> issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:
>
> *_What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
> New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?
>
> So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June
> 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up
> with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?
>
> *And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and
> Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs
> and Immigration?
>
> *The American people not only deserve to have answers to these
> questions, they must have answers.
>
> It makes the debate over Obama's citizenship a rather short and simple
> one.
>
> *Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
> A : Yes, by his own admission.
>
> *Q: What passport did he travel under?
> A: There are only three possibilities.
> 1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
> 2) He traveled with a British passport, or
> 3) He traveled with an Indonesian passport.
>
> Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
> A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department's
> "no travel" list in 1981.
>
> Conclusion:
> When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a
> British passport or an Indonesian passport.
>
> If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof
> that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims.
> And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport, that would tend to
> prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held,
> British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian
> step-father in 1967.
>
> Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he
> managed to become a "natural born" American citizen between 1981 and
> 2008..
>
> Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by
> his speech before Congress
> and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner
> we learn the truth of all this, the better.
> >

It's very obvious to me this ASS knows exactly what he's doing to bring the
US to it's knees and promote his big government socialist agenda. 1
trillion in deficits soon to go to 2 trillion by the end of the year. And
he wants to raise taxes and push through a Cap and Tax global warming
bullshit bill. And on top of that National Health Care. What the fuck is
this idiot thinking? Guess money does grow on trees. We are in deep shit!!!
If you are working, you won't be in a year!
-
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Len wrote:
> He won get over it. the questions are now moot. G bush was and is a
> high functioning mental defective and there is no question about that

It doesn't matter if he eats babies for breakfast and farts cyanide, he no
longer has any political power to speak of and if your life sucks it's
Obama's job to fix it, so GET OVER BUSH.

Gordon Shumway wrote:

> Maybe YOU should pay more attention. Ask yourself these questions:

Decent points except:

> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM
> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
> have approved?

The percentage of GM stock stolen by Obama and redistributed to Big
Brother and the Unions is 100%. Any common stockholder that owned GM
common stock lost 100% of it to the government and the unions.

Also, a question you missed: If George W. Bush had mentioned, in
public,(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws) that he had visited
all 57 states, except Alaska and Hawaii, would you have called him dumb?

Also begging the question is: If George W. Bush had attended David Dukes
sermons every week for years where Dukes blamed blacks for everything
plaguing us from Aids to Zebra breath, would you consider Bush a racist?

Jack

> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
> Olympics, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
> thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
> narcissistic and tacky?
>
> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
> nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
> minor slip?
>
> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
> people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
> you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco
> de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
> of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
> would you have winced in embarrassment?
>
> If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof”
> of what a dunce he is?
>
> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
> single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
>
> If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
> Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
> they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?
>
> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
> laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
> own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>
> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
> throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
> in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
>
> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
> would you have approved?
>
> If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
> years, would you have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM
> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
> have approved?
>
> If George W. Bush had spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
> Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
>
> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
> and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
> this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
> come up with an answer.
>
> G.S.

In article <[email protected]>,
Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:

>My personal life does not evolve around Obama, but he fits the "tax
>and spend" model perfectly.

I actually prefer that to the "borrow and spend" mentality the
Republicans seem to favor.

--
-Ed Falk, [email protected]
http://thespamdiaries.blogspot.com/

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> The percentage of GM stock stolen by Obama and redistributed to Big
>> Brother and the Unions is 100%. Any common stockholder that owned GM
>> common stock lost 100% of it to the government and the unions.
>
> I must have my history confused. Didn't GM go to the government asking for
> bailouts? In a private jet, no less? During the Bush administration?

Seems to me that Obama fired the CEO of GM, exactly what any socialist
dictator should have done, then redistributed the company to the
government and the unions.

> If the government had refused that bailout, how much of the GM common stock
> would be lost? 100%.

Who knows. Perhaps the court could have done what they do when a
company goes into bankruptcy? Perhaps GM could have come back, or, gone
out of business, or, been sold. I may have lost all my stock anyway,
but thats far better than having a socialist dictator steal it from me
and pretend the "taxpayers" own it. Give me a break.

> Creditors end up owning the company after a bankruptcy. Both the union and the
> government were major creditors. Nothing was stolen.

In my opinion, the government stole it. The executive branch should not
be firing anyone in a company I own. The government, in a capitalist
economic system should not own ANY company.

> I suspect it is going to be a lousy investment for the taxpayers, but that is a
> different subject.

Same subject. In a capitalist society, which we were at one time,
private citizens owned companies, not the government, and if the
business failed, it failed. Government buy outs is simply wrong.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Seems to me that Obama fired the CEO of GM, exactly what any socialist
>> dictator should have done, then redistributed the company to the
>> government and the unions.

> He did. But let's abstract it for a minute.

Abstracts are fun, but real life is where we are. Obama has no freaking
business being in business, firing the head of MY company. I guess I
shouldn't be too pissed off, the bond holders really got reamed.

Consider the president of a bank,
> who inherits a $15 billion investment from his predecessor. The investment is
> going sour, with a $30.9 billion dollar loss and an auditor's statement that
> the company continuing survival is "in substantial doubt".

> What does he do? Firing the CEO, demanding a plan for continued viability, and
> taking the company into bankruptcy when the plan fails would be smart capitalism
> and protecting his investors.

Your point is?

>> Same subject. In a capitalist society, which we were at one time,
>> private citizens owned companies, not the government, and if the
>> business failed, it failed. Government buy outs is simply wrong.

> I'm not happy with government bail outs, either.

Nobody seems to be, yet, here we are.

But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama.

You are still in living in the abstract I see. Bush didn't do it ever.
In fact when Enron asked Bush for a bailout, he laughed at them.

Obama was just cleaning up the mess the same way any
> investor of that magnitude could have and should have.

I guess you either live in Canada, or some other socialist country, or
just moved here. In the US, the government is not supposed to be in
business, period. In the past 50 years, government has taken over the
transportation systems, gambling, sports stadiums, parking lots, car
manufacturing, banking and the health industry is next. You can bet Big
Brother will be taking away your guns, then free speech, freedom OF
religion (I'm an atheist and still that pisses me off) and you, and the
rest of the dumb asses will still be blaming Bush. Well, you might be
dead by then, socialist dictators have a fat record of killing their own
for the "good" of the collective.

The only good thing going on in the US is when Robotoy crosses the
boarder to get his triple bypass or prostate cancer treated, he will
have to wait just as long as he does in Canada. Same with the Italy's
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. Perhaps he will have to go to Canada
to get his heart surgery.

I guess there are other neat things about the direction Obama is taking
the US. Soon, we will be invading Canada and Mexico looking for low pay
jobs and free health care, and a "better" life in general.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:

>> But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama.

>> You are still in living in the abstract I see. Bush didn't do it ever.
>> In fact when Enron asked Bush for a bailout, he laughed at them.

> Please get your facts straight. GM and Chrysler were granted $17.4 Billion in
> loans on December 19, 2008 by the Bush administration. See:

Loans are not the same thing as "bailing out" a company by taking over
it's assets, stealing from the bond holders and stockholders, bypassing
the legal system, and taking over the means of production (socialism).

What company did Bush take over and fire the CEO, put them out of
business, stealing the company from the stockholders and giving it to
Big Brother and the Unions?

You have Bush stuck up your ass, and he's out fishing, drinking,
screwing and having a ball. You seem to be too fucking stupid to
understand that Bush, Clinton and Obama are all the same guy, running at
different speeds. Bush may have been an anti-American socialist
bastard, but Obama is now in charge.

At least Obama is an in your face socialist, rather than in your back
socialist. Same fucking result though. You may be a socialist, or not,
I don't much care, but running around waving your arms that Bush is a
dick, and Obama is a god is just too stupid for words...

The good news is, soon, Robotoy will be waiting 18 months for some hack
to wack his prostate or sew in some pig arteries, even if he sneaks over
the border to the USSA for some "free" goodies, assuming he's not too
old for treatment of course.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

Jack Stein wrote:

> Douglas Johnson wrote:
>> Jack Stein <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> But remember, it was Bush that did it, not Obama.
>
>>> You are still in living in the abstract I see. Bush didn't do it ever.
>>> In fact when Enron asked Bush for a bailout, he laughed at them.
>
>> Please get your facts straight. GM and Chrysler were granted $17.4
>> Billion in
>> loans on December 19, 2008 by the Bush administration. See:
>
> Loans are not the same thing as "bailing out" a company by taking over
> it's assets, stealing from the bond holders and stockholders, bypassing
> the legal system, and taking over the means of production (socialism).
>
> What company did Bush take over and fire the CEO, put them out of
> business, stealing the company from the stockholders and giving it to
> Big Brother and the Unions?
>
> You have Bush stuck up your ass, and he's out fishing, drinking,
> screwing and having a ball. You seem to be too fucking stupid to
> understand that Bush, Clinton and Obama are all the same guy, running at
> different speeds. Bush may have been an anti-American socialist
> bastard, but Obama is now in charge.
>
> At least Obama is an in your face socialist, rather than in your back
> socialist. Same fucking result though. You may be a socialist, or not,
> I don't much care, but running around waving your arms that Bush is a
> dick, and Obama is a god is just too stupid for words...
>
> The good news is, soon, Robotoy will be waiting 18 months for some hack
> to wack his prostate or sew in some pig arteries, even if he sneaks over
> the border to the USSA for some "free" goodies, assuming he's not too
> old for treatment of course.
>
Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same as the old
boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the Banks and
Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are only pawns
in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and Multi Corps. that make
every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm not a liberal....
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Mark & Juanita wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
> ... snip
>>>
>> Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same as the
>> old
>> boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the Banks and
>> Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are only pawns
>> in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and Multi Corps. that
>> make every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm not a liberal....
>
> Seems a strange way for the huge corporations to be running the world --
> having their stock taken over by the government, their CEO fired by POTUS,
> and the company "re-distributed" to the government and the unions. Yeah,
> those corporations, they're pretty powerful and sly, yep.
>
>
Last time I looked GM was not a bank and has no powerful lobbyist working
the Politicians. There will be no new regulations on Wall Street. Wall
Street owns Congress.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

Nova wrote:

> evodawg wrote:
>
>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>
>>
>>>evodawg wrote:
>>>
>>>... snip
>>>
>>>>Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same as the
>>>>old
>>>>boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the Banks
>>>>and
>>>>Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are only
>>>>pawns in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and Multi Corps.
>>>>that make every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm not a liberal....
>>>
>>> Seems a strange way for the huge corporations to be running the world
>>> --
>>>having their stock taken over by the government, their CEO fired by
>>>POTUS,
>>>and the company "re-distributed" to the government and the unions. Yeah,
>>>those corporations, they're pretty powerful and sly, yep.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Last time I looked GM was not a bank and has no powerful lobbyist working
>> the Politicians. There will be no new regulations on Wall Street. Wall
>> Street owns Congress.
>
> Then it looks like GM spent just shy of $14,000,000 in 2008 on "not"
> working the politicians.
>
>
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2008&lname=General+Motors&id=
>
Pennies compared to finance and Investment Lobby.
--
"You can lead them to LINUX
but you can't make them THINK"
Running Mandriva release 2008.0 free-i586 using KDE on i586
Website Address http://rentmyhusband.biz/

evodawg wrote:
> Nova wrote:
>
>> evodawg wrote:
>>
>>> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> evodawg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ... snip
>>>>
>>>>> Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same
>>>>> as the old
>>>>> boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the
>>>>> Banks and
>>>>> Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are
>>>>> only pawns in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and
>>>>> Multi Corps. that make every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm
>>>>> not a liberal....
>>>>
>>>> Seems a strange way for the huge corporations to be running the
>>>> world --
>>>> having their stock taken over by the government, their CEO fired by
>>>> POTUS,
>>>> and the company "re-distributed" to the government and the unions.
>>>> Yeah, those corporations, they're pretty powerful and sly, yep.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Last time I looked GM was not a bank and has no powerful lobbyist
>>> working the Politicians. There will be no new regulations on Wall
>>> Street. Wall Street owns Congress.
>>
>> Then it looks like GM spent just shy of $14,000,000 in 2008 on "not"
>> working the politicians.
>>
>>
> http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2008&lname=General+Motors&id=
>>
> Pennies compared to finance and Investment Lobby.

And distributed among the members of Congress it gives each one about 2
percent of the cost of their political campaign.

On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 11:19:16 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tom Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Republican Slogans For Now And The Future:
>>
>>
>> "Riding The Pine In 2009."
>>
>> "Sent To The Pen In 2010."
>>
>> "Kept Out Of Heaven In 2011."
>>
>> "The Party That's Shelved In 2012."
>>
>>
>>
>
>I dunno. I kinda like: "Today we rescue a world from mysticism and tyranny
>and usher in a future brighter than anything we can imagine."
>
>But it's a little long for a bumper sticker.
>


The last GOP slogan I could get behind was Bush the Elder's:

"A Thousand Pints Of Lite."


Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:09:07 -0700, "Rusty" <[email protected]> wrote:

>You get a tax break and he had to spend to clean up Bush's mess maybe you
>should pay more attention.


Maybe YOU should pay more attention. Ask yourself these questions:

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco
de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof”
of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?

If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM
stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
have approved?

If George W. Bush had spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
come up with an answer.

G.S.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:21:12 -0500, "Joe" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Very Interesting questions.

My personal life does not evolve around Obama, but he fits the "tax
and spend" model perfectly.

On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:00:02 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 8:49 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> <snip a lotta whining from a buncha losers>
>>
>> HA!  Welcome to my last eight years, ya fuggin losers!
>>
>> Obama kicked your loser gop asses and we're gonna have years and years
>> of a BLACK man telling you racist whiteys what to do!
>>
>> SUCK IT, BITCHES!
>>
>> ROTFLMAO
>>
>> I can't wait til the gubbermint is paying to KILL THE UNBORN!
>>
>> D'ohBoy
>
>Pwheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew...PLOP.....Whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>
>I think Joe nailed hisself a big fish.... well... not a 'really' big
>fish....smells like a fish though.....whirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
>
>Not too shabby for a beginner.


Yes, and subtle, too.


Republican Slogans For Now And The Future:


"Riding The Pine In 2009."

"Sent To The Pen In 2010."

"Kept Out Of Heaven In 2011."

"The Party That's Shelved In 2012."



Regards,

Tom Watson
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

He won get over it. the questions are now moot. G bush was and is a high
functioning mental defective and there is no question about that


Len

"Joe" wrote:

> Very Interesting questions.

Don't give up what ever it is you are smoking and/or drinking.

Lew

TexMax wrote:

>
> "Gordon Shumway" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
>> Olympics, would you have approved?
>
> No, but I didn't approve of his, "Bring it on" comment either.

Bit of a different horse there

>
>> If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
>> incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a
>> thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
>
> No, but I didn't think much of his comment, "You're doing a good job,
> Brownie" either.
>
>> If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing
>> videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly
>> narcissistic and tacky?
>
> Are you sure that's what was on the Video? ... snip
>

Well, given that it was the White House who disclosed what was on the
iPod, I guess that is a good question.

>> If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you
>> have approved?
>
> Nope. To my knowledge, none of America's presidents have ever bowed to
> foreign potentates.
>

There is absolutely zero doubt that the current president did bow to the
king of Saudi Arabia. The excuses given that he was bending because of
height differences, etc. just don't stand up to scrutiny of the actual
video. The current president of the US bowed to the leader of the House of
Saud.


>> If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
>> nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a
>> minor slip?
>
> What language does Bush speak?
>

Interesting response. Pretty much answers the original question -- the
meme was that Bush was an idiot, the current idiot in chief has made way
more gaffes (All 57 states ...) and pretty much gets a pass.

>> If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
>> people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would
>> you have approved?
>
> Well, one thing about it; they were at least smart enough to do their own
> taxes, something not many in Bush's cabinet could claim.
>

Wow, this is fun. The fact is they were *NOT* smart enough to do their
own taxes as evidenced by the fact that they did not do those taxes.

>> If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco
>> de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth
>> of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again,
>> would you have winced in embarrassment?
>
> Are you sure it wasn't "Cinco de Mayo"?
>

Yep, your president is a pandering dunce.


>> If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have
>> hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as "proof"
>> of what a dunce he is?
>
> Well, duh !
>

Double standard much?


>> If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
>> single tree on "Earth Day," would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
>
> George Bush wouldn't have to do anything more than he has already to
> convince me that he's a hypocrite.
>

... and statists have the nerve to say that conservatives are biased. We
at least had the temerity to disagree with Bush when he was wrong --
Medicare Drug Bill, Amnesty for Illegals.

>> If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low
>> over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown
>> Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
>> they actually "get" what happened on 9-11?
>
> You haven't really kept up with the rest of that story, have you.
>

Oh, please enlighten us. How do you salvage this situation? Especially
after the administration initially had planned to keep the pictures taken
classified until the hue and cry became so great that they released ONE
photo -- a photo that could just as easily been generated with Photoshop
rather than the enormous waste of resources by flying the presidential
plane and scaring the populace of NYC silly. Actually, it's kind of poetic
justice since NYC contains a majority of Obama voters, so from that
standpoint, it was kind of a win.

>> If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
>> installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
>> laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his
>> own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
>
> If anyone ever needed a teleprompter to keep himself on message, to keep
> from mauling the English language and to keep from making an ass of
> himself, it has to be George Bush.
>

Uhhh, umm it would cost ... uhhh about ummm, ahhh, hold-on I'm gonna get to
it, uhhhh ahhhh ummmm it would cost about .....

[Hint, that wasn't GWB who stuttered that phrase]


>> If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
>> throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than
>> in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political
>> issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
>
> What news sources are you depending on for your info?
>
>> If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of=2 0a major
>> corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
>> would you have approved?
>
> Nope, and I don't approve of Obama's act either.
>

Well, there is some hope for you

>> If GeorgeW. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had
>> taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you
>> have approved?
>
> No. I don't approve of budget busting.
>
>> If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10
>> years, would you have approved?
>
> You're being redundant.
>
>> If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM
>> stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you
>> have approved?
>
> Oh, hell no!
>

OK, you've got some glimmer of hope, but then ...


>
>> So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant
>> and impressive?
>
> In contrast to Bush? Uh...brains, education, ability. Too bad his
> political philosophy is just as far to the left as Bush's was to the
> right.
>

Frankly, the guy is either heavily editing himself when talking, or is a
bigger dunce than you ever thought Bush was. His actions and activities
appear calculated to destroy the US economy and free market. You don't
solve the previous budget deficit by tripling it (and that is by optimistic
estimates). The man has never run anything in his life. The only thing he
has done is campaign for the next highest office. He spent less than 144
days in the Senate before starting to run for POTUS and sponsored or pushed
no major legislation, one can't point to a single accomplishment. I used
to think that he memorized well and was able to regurgitate the teachings
of his mentors (Ayers, Alinski, etc.). However, given his performance
off-teleprompter, even that is questionable. If he succeeds in
implementing his agenda, the US will not be the same country we grew up in.
Even the Europeans are starting to see what their socialist utopia has
wrought and they are just now starting to try to roll some of that back.
This president on the other hand has his foot on the accelerator to push
this country into that same flawed societal model.

If you really listen to what he says, he's not cool, he's cold.

> Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all
>> this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to
>> come up with an answer.
>>
>> G.S.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

evodawg wrote:

> Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>
>>evodawg wrote:
>>
>>... snip
>>
>>>Really think the WHO said it the best, "Meet the new boss; same as the
>>>old
>>>boss" You just got fooled again!!! It's obvious to me it's the Banks and
>>>Huge Corporations that run this country and the WORLD. We are only pawns
>>>in the big picture and it's the Investment Banks and Multi Corps. that
>>>make every move on the CHESS Board. BTW, I'm not a liberal....
>>
>> Seems a strange way for the huge corporations to be running the world --
>>having their stock taken over by the government, their CEO fired by POTUS,
>>and the company "re-distributed" to the government and the unions. Yeah,
>>those corporations, they're pretty powerful and sly, yep.
>>
>>
>
> Last time I looked GM was not a bank and has no powerful lobbyist working
> the Politicians. There will be no new regulations on Wall Street. Wall
> Street owns Congress.

Then it looks like GM spent just shy of $14,000,000 in 2008 on "not"
working the politicians.

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?year=2008&lname=General+Motors&id=

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"RicodJour" wrote:

>Lew, you know people can get plenty high without losing their
reasoning ability. Don't encourage the guy to destroy that last brain
cell.

You mean there is one left?

Lew