| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
five-point political agenda
Tell the truth.
Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
"rw" wrote in message ... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? Op |
five-point political agenda
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:37:55 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus"
wrote: "rw" wrote in message m... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? Op None of the above, Mark. He's running under the People United Towards Zealousness party, aka PUTZ party. He's the chief Putzer. |
five-point political agenda
"rw" wrote Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Does it not bother anyone else that this is really three things? --riverman |
five-point political agenda
"riverman" wrote in message ... "rw" wrote Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Does it not bother anyone else that this is really three things? --riverman What did you expect from a neophyte politician? Op |
five-point political agenda
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote:
"rw" wrote in message ... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? I'm not running for anything, but I'm supporting the Democrats. It's critically important that they win the House of Representatives and/or the Senate so that they have subpoena power to investigate the corrupt gang of crooks and liars who have been flushing our country down the toilet for the past six years. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:37:55 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote: "rw" wrote in message om... Tell the truth. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? Op None of the above, Mark. He's running under the People United Towards Zealousness party, aka PUTZ party. He's the chief Putzer. I can understand why you have a problem with telling the truth. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
Dave LaCourse wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 10:37:55 -0400, "Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote: "rw" wrote in message m... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? Op None of the above, Mark. He's running under the People United Towards Zealousness party, aka PUTZ party. He's the chief Putzer. He's gotta run as something and he sure as hell couldn't run as a republican with those values. |
five-point political agenda
You forgot about the invasion....
john "rw" wrote in message ... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
asadi wrote:
You forgot about the invasion.... Which one? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
We got what we deserve for voting for the guy. We did this to our self's.
"rw" wrote in message m... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message ... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? I'm not running for anything, but I'm supporting the Democrats. It's critically important that they win the House of Representatives and/or the Senate so that they have subpoena power to investigate the corrupt gang of crooks and liars who have been flushing our country down the toilet for the past six years. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
"Mark F." wrote in message ...
We got what we deserve for voting for the guy. We did this to our self's. What's with that "we" ****? I'm pretty damned sure "we" didn't vote for him but our Diebold machines here don't have a paper trail, so I can't be 100% certain. Joe F. |
five-point political agenda
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 23:19:25 GMT, "Mark F." wrote:
"rw" wrote in message om... Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: "rw" wrote in message ... Tell the truth. Fire the incompetents. Find Osama bin Laden and secure our ports and our homeland. Bring our troops home from Iraq. Obey the law and protect our civil rights. So, are you runnin' as a Dem, Rep., or a Communist? I'm not running for anything, but I'm supporting the Democrats. It's critically important that they win the House of Representatives and/or the Senate so that they have subpoena power to investigate the corrupt gang of crooks and liars who have been flushing our country down the toilet for the past six years. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. We got what we deserve for voting for the guy. We did this to our self's. Whadaya mean "we", Kimosabe? /daytripper (Cheer up. It's all going to plan...) |
five-point political agenda
daytripper wrote:
Whadaya mean "we", Kimosabe? You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
rw wrote:
What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? The other two even more transparently loathsome creeps? Just a guess. . .. -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
five-point political agenda
"rw" wrote in message m... asadi wrote: You forgot about the invasion.... Which one? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address I wanted to chuckle but I will say, you know, about our soil and borders and such.... john. |
five-point political agenda
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw
wrote: You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH. Hell, that was easy. |
five-point political agenda
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw wrote: You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH. Hell, that was easy. It continues to amaze me how many people still think 'a candidate like Kerry' is less preferable to 'a president like Bush'. I'd take NIXON over Bush. --riverman |
five-point political agenda
riverman wrote:
I'd take NIXON over Bush. I'd take 6 feet of dirt over Bush. -- Stan Gula http://gula.org/roffswaps |
five-point political agenda
rw wrote:
daytripper wrote: Whadaya mean "we", Kimosabe? You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. as is quite apparent in this little corner of america, most humans are very, very defensive when challenged about their choices or decisions - even those demonstrably wrong. frankly, given this oddity of human nature, i'm a bit surprised the percentage is that low. of course, it's still most of those who have consistently expressed approval, isn't it? during the last run-up to national elections, on occasions, i intentionally argued with an old retired fella from pennsylvania who regularly came to the bar that my fishing crowd attends every wednesday after work. we argued about his announced decision to vote for the shrub. he couldn't articulate a single rational independent reason to vote for bush (did mouth some of the rove-ian election slogans and mantras), but primarily he felt gore was going to raise his taxes. i tried to suggest how bush's decisions were going to increase his cost of living and ultimately affect him more than any democrat's decision about raising taxes...couldn't pierce the armor of his individual decision. soon after the elections, he quit talking much with me, and for the last 6 months, he's sat at the opposite end of the bar obviously avoiding conversations. however, i noticed that instead of his usual order of the higher-priced bottled beer, he now orders the cheap pitcher of nasty draft beer that's on sale. he won't admit his error, & will find a way to justify it, but i suspect he regrets something about his vote. he might simply regret having ever sat near me. in matters of politics, as well as other issues in life, most people simply find reasons go on believing what they already believe rather than confront their errors and chart a new course. jeff |
five-point political agenda
uh, i brain-farted... *gore* should be *kerry*...the gore argument was
with my friend lane at the same bar 4 years earlier. jeff (it's monday morning g...and, yes, i note the irony) Jeff Miller wrote: rw wrote: daytripper wrote: Whadaya mean "we", Kimosabe? You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. as is quite apparent in this little corner of america, most humans are very, very defensive when challenged about their choices or decisions - even those demonstrably wrong. frankly, given this oddity of human nature, i'm a bit surprised the percentage is that low. of course, it's still most of those who have consistently expressed approval, isn't it? during the last run-up to national elections, on occasions, i intentionally argued with an old retired fella from pennsylvania who regularly came to the bar that my fishing crowd attends every wednesday after work. we argued about his announced decision to vote for the shrub. he couldn't articulate a single rational independent reason to vote for bush (did mouth some of the rove-ian election slogans and mantras), but primarily he felt **gore** was going to raise his taxes. i tried to suggest how bush's decisions were going to increase his cost of living and ultimately affect him more than any democrat's decision about raising taxes...couldn't pierce the armor of his individual decision. soon after the elections, he quit talking much with me, and for the last 6 months, he's sat at the opposite end of the bar obviously avoiding conversations. however, i noticed that instead of his usual order of the higher-priced bottled beer, he now orders the cheap pitcher of nasty draft beer that's on sale. he won't admit his error, & will find a way to justify it, but i suspect he regrets something about his vote. he might simply regret having ever sat near me. in matters of politics, as well as other issues in life, most people simply find reasons go on believing what they already believe rather than confront their errors and chart a new course. jeff |
five-point political agenda
Stan Gula typed:
riverman wrote: I'd take NIXON over Bush. I'd take 6 feet of dirt over Bush. Now THAT'S funny! -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
five-point political agenda
"Tim J." wrote in message ... Stan Gula typed: riverman wrote: I'd take NIXON over Bush. I'd take 6 feet of dirt over Bush. Now THAT'S funny! -- Hopefully. --riverman |
five-point political agenda
Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw wrote: You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH. Hell, that was easy. Who do you think would win if the election were held today? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
"Tim J." wrote in message . .. rw wrote: What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? The other two even more transparently loathsome creeps? Just a guess. . . -- TL, Tim --------------------------- No. Near as I can figure many of the Bush voters like to play dress-up. So when Bush staged the landing on the carrier, after having the carrier turn so the camera shots were seaward, and did the costume change to the leather jacket, it spoke directly to that part of the pocket-poolsters that prefer dress-up to real life people with real life experiences like Kerry and Max Cleland. Some feel that it was a mistake for Kerry not to target ads with Kerry dressed like Jesus' brother, directed to that segment of the population. Or maybe to have dressed-up like a cowboy or a fireman. Focus groups tested post election showed that nearly 40% of male Bush voters would have been twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit meeting with a snake handler church. Dave |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:30:11 -0600, rw
wrote: Dave LaCourse wrote: On Sun, 23 Apr 2006 20:03:07 -0600, rw wrote: You didn't vote for him, and I didn't, but Mark F. has a point. What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? And what's with the thirty-something percent who still approve of what he's done? What planet are they living on? Something is very wrong with this country. We've been over this before. And you know the answer; as long as the Democrat Party puts forth a candidate like Kerry, or Gore, the Republicans, or the Greens, or the Independents will win the WH. Hell, that was easy. Who do you think would win if the election were held today? Kerry had no new ideas. Period. He said he would remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference is that we would now have more taxes. It would be worse today if Kerry was in office. The economy is going along great with no unemployment, low interest rates, and low inflation. The market is doing well. No one has invaded us since 9/11. I don't know about you, but I am far better off today than I was eight years ago, and much safer too. Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to allow drilling off of California and Alaska and the price of gas would go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12 less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so concerned about could find something to do with that $12? If the Dems win in 08, and I hope they do, you will see the tax cuts cancelled and new taxes across the board. Inflation will go up (and that is the worse tax for someone on a fixed income - read poor folks) and the economy will crumble. But fear not. You'll blame that on Bush. If you continue to run bozos like Kerry and Gore, you will *never* win the WH. And if by chance they *do* win, God help us. Dave |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 12:30:11 -0600, rw
wrote: Who do you think would win if the election were held today? McCain-Gephardt. Or, if you perfer, Gephardt-McCain (although McCain-Gephardt would probably do better than the other way around). If Kerry had won, I'd offer that things would be a whole lot worse for and in the US overall. I'd also remind you that Clinton saw his approval rating in the mid-to-low 30s - and his highest, the mid 60s, came in the same year, whereas Bush has seen his in the mid 80s. HTH, R |
five-point political agenda
David Snedeker wrote:
... Focus groups tested post election showed that nearly 40% of male Bush voters would have been twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit meeting with a snake handler church. SPLORK Too funny. I must be feeling better, I can laugh again. Got a letter in the mail today from the state of Illinois that said my daughter is deceased but I can appeal the decision. I had to laugh. -- Ken Fortenberry |
five-point political agenda
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Kerry had no new ideas. Period. He said he would remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only difference is that we would now have more taxes. It would be worse today if Kerry was in office. The economy is going along great with no unemployment, low interest rates, and low inflation. The market is doing well. No one has invaded us since 9/11. I don't know about you, but I am far better off today than I was eight years ago, and much safer too. People at the top of the economic ladder are doing well (the fat-******* CEO of Exxon just got a $400M retirement benefit), but the middle class is hurting. Real wages have fallen since 2000, even through productivity is up: http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...g_real_wa.html That's why the polls show strong disapproval of the Bush administration's handling of the economy. The benefits of the economic growth are going to the very wealthy. Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to allow drilling off of California and Alaska How about Florida? Jeb doesn't like that idea. and the price of gas would go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12 less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so concerned about could find something to do with that $12? I support a steep INCREASE in the gasoline tax, with the revenue going to support research and development in alternative fuels. Brazil, of all places, is on the verge of energy independence because they've invested in renewable fuel sources. If they can do it, so can we. If the Dems win in 08, and I hope they do, you will see the tax cuts cancelled and new taxes across the board. Inflation will go up (and that is the worse tax for someone on a fixed income - read poor folks) and the economy will crumble. But fear not. You'll blame that on Bush. That sounds exactly like what the wingnuts were saying when Clinton was elected in 1992 and he raised taxes. The actual result, as we now know, was eight years of nearly zero inflation, the largest economic expansion in history, and budget surpluses. I support an increase in the income tax rates, and specifically a roll-back of the Bush tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthy. I believe that we should balance the federal budget and not finance huge debt by borrowing from the Chinese, among others. I believe we have to start living within our means and stop pushing the ruinous consequences of lavish spending on to our children. If you continue to run bozos like Kerry and Gore, you will *never* win the WH. I'd like to remind you that Gore WON the popular vote in 2000, and the vote in 2004 was Bush 50.7%, Kerry 48.3% -- a very close election. A few thousand votes in Ohio would have given Kerry the electoral-vote win. (And BTW, when are we going to fix this stupid, antiquated electoral college system?) And if by chance they *do* win, God help us. You just wrote above that you HOPE the Democrats win in 2008. Why do you hate America? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
David Snedeker wrote:
"Tim J." wrote in message . .. rw wrote: What could have persuaded people to vote for this transparently loathsome creep? The other two even more transparently loathsome creeps? Just a guess. . . -- TL, Tim --------------------------- No. Near as I can figure many of the Bush voters like to play dress-up. So when Bush staged the landing on the carrier, after having the carrier turn so the camera shots were seaward, and did the costume change to the leather jacket, it spoke directly to that part of the pocket-poolsters that prefer dress-up to real life people with real life experiences like Kerry and Max Cleland. I have to believe that the people who still approve of Bush, despite the abundant evidence of his bumbling incompetence and mendacity, are the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:56:12 -0700, "David Snedeker"
wrote: Bush voters would have been twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit meeting with a snake handler church. That is plain bull****, David. Do you remember when he said, "Can I get me a huntin' license here?" The entire nation laughed at him for dumbing down and acting like some kind of hillbilly hick. He is what he is and most folks saw that. Do you think Al Gore hiring someone to make him look more "macho" and changed his wardrobe to earth tones helped? He is what he is. Dave |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:23:34 -0600, rw
wrote: I have to believe that the people who still approve of Bush, despite the abundant evidence of his bumbling incompetence and mendacity, are the people who wouldn't mind if he ate their children. You are such a stupid person. Downright stupid! |
five-point political agenda
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... [snip] Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to allow drilling off of California and Alaska and the price of gas would go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12 less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so concerned about could find something to do with that $12? Hmmmm....if you're paying .50/gallon or more Federal gas tax, you must be special. The latest figures I can find have the fed gas tax at .184/gallon. What did I miss, Dave? When did Al Gore increase the Fed gas tax by fifty cents a gallon? I don't know about your math and ....errr...I don't think you do either BSEG http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html Danl |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 14:20:40 -0600, rw
wrote: I support a steep INCREASE in the gasoline tax, with the revenue going to support research and development in alternative fuels. Brazil, of all places, is on the verge of energy independence because they've invested in renewable fuel sources. If they can do it, so can we. Have you ever been to Brazil, cowboy? It ain't all it's cracked up to be. They use alchohol for fuel, yes, but you can't breathe the air. Rio and San Paulo both have so much foul air that it makes your throat hurt and your eyes water and sting. Besides, there ain't enough corn in all of the earth to keep us going. If the Dems win in 08, and I hope they do, you will see the tax cuts cancelled and new taxes across the board. Inflation will go up (and that is the worse tax for someone on a fixed income - read poor folks) and the economy will crumble. But fear not. You'll blame that on Bush. That sounds exactly like what the wingnuts were saying when Clinton was elected in 1992 and he raised taxes. The actual result, as we now know, was eight years of nearly zero inflation, the largest economic expansion in history, and budget surpluses. I support an increase in the income tax rates, and specifically a roll-back of the Bush tax cuts that went overwhelmingly to the wealthy. I believe that we should balance the federal budget and not finance huge debt by borrowing from the Chinese, among others. I believe we have to start living within our means and stop pushing the ruinous consequences of lavish spending on to our children. If you continue to run bozos like Kerry and Gore, you will *never* win the WH. I'd like to remind you that Gore WON the popular vote in 2000, and the vote in 2004 was Bush 50.7%, Kerry 48.3% -- a very close election. A few thousand votes in Ohio would have given Kerry the electoral-vote win. (And BTW, when are we going to fix this stupid, antiquated electoral college system?) And if by chance they *do* win, God help us. You just wrote above that you HOPE the Democrats win in 2008. Why do you hate America? LOL. I hate YOUR part of America. America will survive regarless who is in office, but it will be such fun to watch the dems destroy a good economy that started way back with Reagan and has lasted all these years with a dip or two along the way. I remember the Carter years (made a helluva lot of money in the money market btw), and I don't want to return to those days. You can say what you want to about Bush and I would probably agree with much of it, but he is an attack dog, and that is what we need, not a French Poodle like Kerry. Who don't need anyone who will govern by consensus. You and others in this nuthouse have said that the American voter is a fool and idiot. Well, guess what? They are the ones who would be the consensus. BTW, the Electoral College has worked for more than 200 years. If the shoe was on the other foot, YOU would be defending it. d;o) |
five-point political agenda
Dave LaCourse wrote:
"David Snedeker" wrote: Bush voters would have been twice as likely to have voted Democratic if Kerry had dressed up as a pirate, been coached to speak a little NASCAR, or hosted a campaign summit meeting with a snake handler church. That is plain bull****, David. ... sheesh It was a *joke*, Louie. And a pretty funny one too. "Speak a little NASCAR", LOL !! Answer me this about male Bush voters. If you see a pick up truck sporting both a rebel flag and political stickers what percentage of the political stickers will be Bush stickers ? That's right, one hundred percent Bush. And that's *not* a joke. -- Ken Fortenberry |
five-point political agenda
Danl typed:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... [snip] Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to allow drilling off of California and Alaska and the price of gas would go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12 less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so concerned about could find something to do with that $12? Hmmmm....if you're paying .50/gallon or more Federal gas tax, you must be special. The latest figures I can find have the fed gas tax at .184/gallon. What did I miss, Dave? When did Al Gore increase the Fed gas tax by fifty cents a gallon? I don't know about your math and ....errr...I don't think you do either BSEG http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html Yeah, I didn't quite understand that math either. In most states, the state tax exceeds the fed. http://tinyurl.com/r4pce Add the two together and you get close to that $.50 figure. -- TL, Tim ------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj |
five-point political agenda
I believe that the average tax amount across the U.S. is like $0.43, but
most of this is state taxes, and like you said only 0.02 federal. |
five-point political agenda
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 21:18:38 +0800, "riverman"
wrote: Hopefully. Hopefully it is funny, or hopefully you wish Bush was dead? You can't *possibly* hate *anyone* that much, can you? |
five-point political agenda
Danl wrote:
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message ... [snip] Gas prices are high, but they are high worldwide. Get the Dems to allow drilling off of California and Alaska and the price of gas would go down. Take away the last fed gas tax ($.50/gallon) voted in by Al Gore when the Senate was dead-locked at 50/50, and your gas would be alot cheaper. I don't know about your math, but that would be $12 less a tank where I buy gas. Ya think those folks at WM you are so concerned about could find something to do with that $12? Hmmmm....if you're paying .50/gallon or more Federal gas tax, you must be special. The latest figures I can find have the fed gas tax at .184/gallon. What did I miss, Dave? When did Al Gore increase the Fed gas tax by fifty cents a gallon? I don't know about your math and ....errr...I don't think you do either BSEG http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1054.html Dave isn't part of the reality-based community. He believes whatever he hears from Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
five-point political agenda
"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message Have you ever been to Brazil, cowboy? It ain't all it's cracked up to be. They use alchohol for fuel, yes, but you can't breathe the air. Rio and San Paulo both have so much foul air that it makes your throat hurt and your eyes water and sting. Besides, there ain't enough corn in all of the earth to keep us going. first, how recent is your information on Brazil?? If not in the past decade, it is completely impertinent to the discussion. Second, all ethanol need not come from corn (and, yes, there is a hell of a lot of it,but maybe not enough), sugar cane comes to mind at the top of a list of a few hundred products which can be distilled to produce it. Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter