Its looking grim - OT
 

On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:27:21 -0800, JR
wrote:

George Adams wrote:

Well let's take a look. The majority seemed to feel that Bush would be more
effective against terrorism, and they like his tax policy. As far as fiscal
responsibility...well 2 out of three ain't bad.

How does one separate Bush's fiscal irresponsibility from his ruinous,
regressive tax policy or from his hugely costly, totally unnecessary
war--a war that hinders rather than aids the fight against terrorism?

Well, yeah! There's *that*!

But then there's......um............hmmm...........

/daytripper (still can't believe they *elected* the idiot. jeeze...)

Its looking grim
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:02:21 GMT, "Stan Gula"
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip
Look at the map that John Russel referred to. It's an impressive win,
especially when things were going very badly for him. And, remember,
he is the first majority president since his father.

You want a map? Here's a map:
http://kenlayne.com/new_map.jpg

Perfect. I'm there.

Its looking grim
 

On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:02:21 GMT, "Stan Gula"
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:
snip
Look at the map that John Russel referred to. It's an impressive win,
especially when things were going very badly for him. And, remember,
he is the first majority president since his father.

You want a map? Here's a map:
http://kenlayne.com/new_map.jpg

Perfect. I'm there.

Its looking grim
 

On 05 Nov 2004 16:55:14 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:

From:

On this George is absolutely right. You will never sway voters
to your side by telling them how stupid they were to vote the
other side. You'll simply entrench them even stronger. And, like
it or not, this atitude *is* what the average rural American is
seeing from the "urban intellectual" mouth of the Democratic
party. Do people really want to hear Michael Moore tell them what
idiots they are for electing Bush the first time? If you think
the answer is yes, then the Democrats will lose again fours years
from now..

Thanks Jon. I'm glad somebody gets the message.

Yeah, they were total ****wits, but we won't talk about that any more.

/daytripper (That about right? No?? ****, no satisfying some folks! ;-)

Its looking grim
 

On 05 Nov 2004 16:55:14 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:

From:

On this George is absolutely right. You will never sway voters
to your side by telling them how stupid they were to vote the
other side. You'll simply entrench them even stronger. And, like
it or not, this atitude *is* what the average rural American is
seeing from the "urban intellectual" mouth of the Democratic
party. Do people really want to hear Michael Moore tell them what
idiots they are for electing Bush the first time? If you think
the answer is yes, then the Democrats will lose again fours years
from now..

Thanks Jon. I'm glad somebody gets the message.

Yeah, they were total ****wits, but we won't talk about that any more.

/daytripper (That about right? No?? ****, no satisfying some folks! ;-)

Its looking grim
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

It *was* the first majority vote since 88, however.

For me, this is actually very depressing. We were having a
consistent "strong" 3rd-party vote for over a decade, and
the two parties rewrote the rules and reigned it in, thus
consolidating their power. Very sad...

You think THAT'S sad..........it'll be nearly a year and a half before the
next presidential campaign starts. What are we gonna do till then?
:(

Wolfgang
sigh

Its looking grim
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Dave LaCourse wrote:

It *was* the first majority vote since 88, however.

For me, this is actually very depressing. We were having a
consistent "strong" 3rd-party vote for over a decade, and
the two parties rewrote the rules and reigned it in, thus
consolidating their power. Very sad...

You think THAT'S sad..........it'll be nearly a year and a half before the
next presidential campaign starts. What are we gonna do till then?
:(

Wolfgang
sigh

Its looking grim
 

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:24:19 -0700, philski
wrote:


As far as Social Security is concerned, I think I could have done a lot
better had I been able to invest those same monies in simple savings
accounts. But I have to pay into it whether I like it or not. Each
paycheck I receive has a noted deduction for the upkeep of that
entitlement. It used to have it's own fund and account. But it was
raided by Congress and put into the General Fund. So, I will collect "my
share" someday, but until then, I guess I'll have to put up with the tax
that it is.


I know this is old, but: Social Security is a welfare program
that Roosevelt dressed up as an "insurance program" to
make it palatable to both payers and payees. And it was not
"raided by Congress," it was Nixon that first began to comingle
funds and every president since has followed suit.