|
|
OT-Posted without comment
|
OT-Posted without comment
"Fred Lebow" wrote in message
et... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...artner=homepag Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. |
OT-Posted without comment
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Fred Lebow" wrote in message et... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...artner=homepag Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. Oh boy. His last tax cut package generated an tax increase of over 300% for me and those in my situation. The largest tax increase for any segment of the US public in history. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Fred Lebow" wrote in message et... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...artner=homepag Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. Oh boy. His last tax cut package generated an tax increase of over 300% for me and those in my situation. The largest tax increase for any segment of the US public in history. --riverman It's magic. Don't you like magic? |
OT-Posted without comment
Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians
pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred -- Fred Lebow ..com "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Fred Lebow" wrote in message et... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...artner=homepag Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. Oh boy. His last tax cut package generated an tax increase of over 300% for me and those in my situation. The largest tax increase for any segment of the US public in history. --riverman It's magic. Don't you like magic? |
OT-Posted without comment
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Fred Lebow" wrote in message et... http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...artner=homepag Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. Oh boy. His last tax cut package generated an tax increase of over 300% for me and those in my situation. The largest tax increase for any segment of the US public in history. --riverman It's magic. Don't you like magic? "Fred Lebow" wrote in message ... Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. When Clinton raised taxes what was his cut? - Ken |
OT-Posted without comment
" wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. When Clinton raised taxes what was his cut? - Ken A blow-job! Op |
OT-Posted without comment
" wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Whoever 'you guys' is.... Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. The 'indirectly' part is similarly easy to understand. Many of Bush's cabinet, Cheney included, have tremendous business interests with corporations who are beneficially impacted by the tax cuts. At the most innocent, whatever is good for those businesses is good for people with interests in those businesses....otherwise why have tax cuts, eh? At the least innocent, those business and corporations are friends and friends pat friends on the back. Can YOU tell US what happened in those closed-door sessions with Cheney's Energy Task Force? Do you actually think these major players are passing tax cuts for the average Joe? That a tax cut where the top 1% of the wealthy recieves 43% of the cut actally benefits the average American (who gets about a $289 benefit from it)? You crack ME up. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken |
OT-Posted without comment
Mr. Opus McDopus wrote: When Clinton raised taxes what was his cut? - Ken A blow-job! Op :-) Best answer yet. - Ken |
OT-Posted without comment
" wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
riverman wrote: " wrote in message Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. --riverman I hear he'll be leaving in 2 years. There will be a new dimwit in that position after that. If we're lucky the new dimwit will be a Dem and we'll hear the other group of people justifying why their dimwit isn't a dimwit. - Ken |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. Actually, although I don't believe it was his personal motivation, Bush got a tremendous benefit from the new tax law. In 2003, his income was $727,082 and he paid $227,490 in federal taxes. In 2005, his income was $735,180 (an increase of $8098) but his tax liability was down to $187,768 (a savings of almost $40,000). I don't know how the new tax law affected you, but I bet you didn't save $40K. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. Actually, although I don't believe it was his personal motivation, Bush got a tremendous benefit from the new tax law. In 2003, his income was $727,082 and he paid $227,490 in federal taxes. In 2005, his income was $735,180 (an increase of $8098) but his tax liability was down to $187,768 (a savings of almost $40,000). I don't know how the new tax law affected you, but I bet you didn't save $40K. --riverman so you are bitter, as you now had to pay taxes on your earnings just like the rest of America that lives in the country. Oops, you still get an exemption for some part of the money earned? |
OT-Posted without comment
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "riverman" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. Actually, although I don't believe it was his personal motivation, Bush got a tremendous benefit from the new tax law. In 2003, his income was $727,082 and he paid $227,490 in federal taxes. In 2005, his income was $735,180 (an increase of $8098) but his tax liability was down to $187,768 (a savings of almost $40,000). I don't know how the new tax law affected you, but I bet you didn't save $40K. --riverman so you are bitter, as you now had to pay taxes on your earnings just like the rest of America that lives in the country. Oops, you still get an exemption for some part of the money earned? NO, I still get an exemption. But I don't get itemized ememptions, nor can I invest in IRAs or ROTHs, nor can I deduct for expenses like people who live and file in the US. Nor would I have to pay the same taxes if I earned exactly the same amount of money and had the exact same benefits package, but I lived in almost any other country. The current Expat tax package was passed in a surreptitious and backdoor manner, in the 12th hour, buy a secret attachment behind closed doors that never was exposed to the light of open debate and discourse. But thats not what we're talking about, and believe it or not, I don't really care about how it affects me personally. We're talking about Bush's tax cut package, and who benefits from it. Tell me, how did YOU fare? Did you save $40K? $20K? $10k? Even $1K? Because if you didn't benefit from it, then I need to hear why you think its a good idea. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
riverman wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "riverman" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. Actually, although I don't believe it was his personal motivation, Bush got a tremendous benefit from the new tax law. In 2003, his income was $727,082 and he paid $227,490 in federal taxes. In 2005, his income was $735,180 (an increase of $8098) but his tax liability was down to $187,768 (a savings of almost $40,000). I don't know how the new tax law affected you, but I bet you didn't save $40K. --riverman so you are bitter, as you now had to pay taxes on your earnings just like the rest of America that lives in the country. Oops, you still get an exemption for some part of the money earned? NO, I still get an exemption. But I don't get itemized ememptions, nor can I invest in IRAs or ROTHs, nor can I deduct for expenses like people who live and file in the US. Nor would I have to pay the same taxes if I earned exactly the same amount of money and had the exact same benefits package, but I lived in almost any other country. The current Expat tax package was passed in a surreptitious and backdoor manner, in the 12th hour, buy a secret attachment behind closed doors that never was exposed to the light of open debate and discourse. But thats not what we're talking about, and believe it or not, I don't really care about how it affects me personally. We're talking about Bush's tax cut package, and who benefits from it. Tell me, how did YOU fare? Did you save $40K? $20K? $10k? Even $1K? Because if you didn't benefit from it, then I need to hear why you think its a good idea. Unlike some, I don't have to benefit from a policy to understand that it is a good policy. Anyone who discusses taxes in dollar amounts rather than in percentages is either abysmally ignorant or attempting to lie. cheers oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. |
OT-Posted without comment
MajorOz wrote: Unlike some, I don't have to benefit from a policy to understand that it is a good policy. Nor do you have to understand something to benefit from it. Lucky bit of symmetry there, ainna? Anyone who discusses taxes in dollar amounts rather than in percentages is either abysmally ignorant or attempting to lie. Everywhere I go, I try to exchange percentages for goods and services. No go. They all want dollars. Go figure. cheers oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. Spending it isn't a problem if you've got it. Dumbass. Wolfgang |
OT-Posted without comment
MajorOz wrote: oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. Tax revenues grow because the total size of the economy grows. And if you look at the last 16 years, the ONLY years that tax revenues shrunk were during the current administration. But that hasn't kept it and its buddies in Congress from bloated spending they don't have the courage or morals to collect taxes for. Democrats: Tax and Spend Republicans: Spend and Spend |
OT-Posted without comment
wrote in message oups.com... MajorOz wrote: oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. Tax revenues grow because the total size of the economy grows. And if you look at the last 16 years, the ONLY years that tax revenues shrunk were during the current administration. But that hasn't kept it and its buddies in Congress from bloated spending they don't have the courage or morals to collect taxes for. Democrats: Tax and Spend Republicans: Spend and Spend As I said, we are screwed by both sides of the aisle. |
OT-Posted without comment
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... MajorOz wrote: oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. Tax revenues grow because the total size of the economy grows. And if you look at the last 16 years, the ONLY years that tax revenues shrunk were during the current administration. But that hasn't kept it and its buddies in Congress from bloated spending they don't have the courage or morals to collect taxes for. Democrats: Tax and Spend Republicans: Spend and Spend As I said, we are screwed by both sides of the aisle. I disagree. I think the Repubs have demonstrated that they are essentially much more corrupt and opportunistic than the Dems. Certainly that old adage that 'power corrupts' plays a role, but I challenge you to list all the Repubs who have been publicly shamed in the last 8 years, forced to resign or have been indicted, and then to generate a similar list of Dems. Repubs are considerably worse than Dems, and thank god that its starting to dawn on folks. --riverman |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... MajorOz wrote: oz, who, like JFK and RWR, understands (and is currently witnessing) that decreasing tax rates results in increased tax revenues. It is the SPENDING that is the problem. Tax revenues grow because the total size of the economy grows. And if you look at the last 16 years, the ONLY years that tax revenues shrunk were during the current administration. But that hasn't kept it and its buddies in Congress from bloated spending they don't have the courage or morals to collect taxes for. Democrats: Tax and Spend Republicans: Spend and Spend As I said, we are screwed by both sides of the aisle. I disagree. I think the Repubs have demonstrated that they are essentially much more corrupt and opportunistic than the Dems. Certainly that old adage that 'power corrupts' plays a role, but I challenge you to list all the Repubs who have been publicly shamed in the last 8 years, forced to resign or have been indicted, and then to generate a similar list of Dems. Repubs are considerably worse than Dems, and thank god that its starting to dawn on folks. --riverman And lets go back a few more than 8 years and list all the Dem's also. If you are going to list, do not restrict the list to the last couple of slimeballs. |
OT-Posted without comment
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... ...If you are going to list, do not restrict the list to the last couple of slimeballs. In ROFF as in the wider world, the slimeballs of the past need not concern us a great deal. It's the incumbents that require attention. Wolfgang well, and their spawn. |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... "riverman" wrote in message ... "riverman" wrote in message ... " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: " wrote in message ups.com... riverman wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "riverman" wrote in message "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Meanwhile, back at nursery school, President Nookular will be talking about tax cuts again soon. "Fred Lebow" wrote in message Do you think that a lot of this $$ is going into a lot of politicians pockets - esp Bush and Cheney? Fred Directly....possibly. Indirectly......absolutely. Wow, for a dimwit that's pretty tricky. Funnelling money to his own pocket by giving out tax cuts. You guys crack me up. Anyway, genius. The 'directly' part is easy to understand....they pay taxes, a tax cut benefits them. Unless, of course, they have their money sheltered in a way that the tax cuts don't affect them, which I assume is possible, but I doubt it. Yep, the tax savings on that presidential salary must really be worth it. I hear that huge salary is why they all go into it. It's a lot more than they could make in the private world. - Ken God, how I wish Bush would realize that and get the f**k out of Washington. Actually, although I don't believe it was his personal motivation, Bush got a tremendous benefit from the new tax law. In 2003, his income was $727,082 and he paid $227,490 in federal taxes. In 2005, his income was $735,180 (an increase of $8098) but his tax liability was down to $187,768 (a savings of almost $40,000). I don't know how the new tax law affected you, but I bet you didn't save $40K. --riverman so you are bitter, as you now had to pay taxes on your earnings just like the rest of America that lives in the country. Oops, you still get an exemption for some part of the money earned? NO, I still get an exemption. But I don't get itemized ememptions, nor can I invest in IRAs or ROTHs, nor can I deduct for expenses like people who live and file in the US. Nor would I have to pay the same taxes if I earned exactly the same amount of money and had the exact same benefits package, but I lived in almost any other country. The current Expat tax package was passed in a surreptitious and backdoor manner, in the 12th hour, buy a secret attachment behind closed doors that never was exposed to the light of open debate and discourse. But thats not what we're talking about, and believe it or not, I don't really care about how it affects me personally. We're talking about Bush's tax cut package, and who benefits from it. Tell me, how did YOU fare? Did you save $40K? $20K? $10k? Even $1K? Because if you didn't benefit from it, then I need to hear why you think its a good idea. --riverman During this entire regime I had ONE (1) benefit. I happened to need to buy a bigger truck for my business at the right time and was able to write off the purchase in one year instead of having to depreciate it out over six (6) years like you normally have to do. It just happened to be a year when I had my highest profits as a business owner. I still have to pay taxes on the same amount of business income over time, but by being able to write off the truck in the same year I bought it I didn't take the sudden tax shot I would have otherwise. Being in business for yourself is a nightmare when it comes to taxes. I don't know why I even do it. I could make as much or more by working for a big corp in my field and my time off would be mine. With the complexity of running a small business it gets less and less appealing every year. LOL. Yesterday morning I agreed to have a new building built. Now I'm stuck. I figure It will be another 5-10 years before I'll be in a position to get out of business if I want to. There must be a masochistic gene there some where that keeps me going, or maybe its that false sense of control. LOL. -- Bob La Londe Fishing Arizona & The Colorado River Fishing Forums & Contests http://www.YumaBassMan.com -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
OT-Posted without comment
"riverman" wrote in message ... "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... wrote in message oups.com... As I said, we are screwed by both sides of the aisle. I disagree. I think the Repubs have demonstrated that they are essentially much more corrupt and opportunistic than the Dems. Certainly that old adage that 'power corrupts' plays a role, but I challenge you to list all the Repubs who have been publicly shamed in the last 8 years, forced to resign or have been indicted, and then to generate a similar list of Dems. Repubs are considerably worse than Dems, and thank god that its starting to dawn on folks. --riverman I disagree more with your statement, the current corrupt administration only *appears* more slimily corrupt than past Dem administrations. The apparent difference is from two side factors: 1) the people in power now make less efforts to hide their greed and corruption (another sign of their arrogance), and, 2) the media is more forgiving of Democrat administrations. Truth is, there's a very base reason people seek national political power in this country, it's a fast path to wealth. |
OT-Posted without comment
In article , westfork59840
@yahoo.com says... 2) the media is more forgiving of Democrat administrations. Have you been paying any attention at all during the last 30 years or so? Kevin -- reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu |
OT-Posted without comment
"Kevin Vang" wrote in message t... In article , westfork59840 @yahoo.com says... 2) the media is more forgiving of Democrat administrations. Have you been paying any attention at all during the last 30 years or so? Kevin -- reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu Yes I have been... and by media I wasn't referring to Fox News.... |
OT-Posted without comment
Skwala wrote: "Kevin Vang" wrote in message t... In article , westfork59840 @yahoo.com says... 2) the media is more forgiving of Democrat administrations. Have you been paying any attention at all during the last 30 years or so? Kevin -- reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu Yes I have been... and by media I wasn't referring to Fox News.... Yeah, that'll fool 'em. Wolfgang hee, hee, hee. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter