Cheney's new fishing companion

On 11-Apr-2008, egildone wrote:

Wearing dark glasses while fly fishing can be dangerous!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...10/CHENEY.html

Ed

Cheney - one of my favorite people

His new companions are probably the Saudi monarchy,

Wonderful people also!

They are very concerned about US inflation and and the pillaging and
destruction of our environment.

Geat humanitarians -all
Useful humans

Fred

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:08:12 GMT, wrote:

On 11-Apr-2008, egildone wrote:

Wearing dark glasses while fly fishing can be dangerous!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...10/CHENEY.html

Ed

Cheney - one of my favorite people

His new companions are probably the Saudi monarchy,

Wonderful people also!

They are very concerned about US inflation and and the pillaging and
destruction of our environment.

Geat humanitarians -all
Useful humans

Fred

That spell checker is working perfectly...

/daytripper ( golf claps ;-)

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:38:59 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:08:12 GMT, wrote:

On 11-Apr-2008, egildone wrote:

Wearing dark glasses while fly fishing can be dangerous!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...10/CHENEY.html

Ed

Cheney - one of my favorite people

His new companions are probably the Saudi monarchy,

Wonderful people also!

They are very concerned about US inflation and and the pillaging and
destruction of our environment.

Geat humanitarians -all
Useful humans

Fred

That spell checker is working perfectly...

/daytripper ( golf claps ;-)

Um, have you lost yer flothermucking mind...?


Hey, OK....or, of you prefer, fey, fav ku rost ber muther****in' gind?

Oh, help--- I think not,
R

wrote in message
...

On 11-Apr-2008, egildone wrote:

Wearing dark glasses while fly fishing can be dangerous!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...10/CHENEY.html

Ed

Cheney - one of my favorite people

His new companions are probably the Saudi monarchy,

Wonderful people also!

They are very concerned about US inflation and and the pillaging and
destruction of our environment.

Geat humanitarians -all
Useful humans

Fred

Lets look at the last year. Democrat controlled Congress. Inflation has
soared, unemployment has increased, oil has skyrocketed, spending has
increased. Vote both parties incumbents out!

Calif Bill wrote:
wrote in message
...

On 11-Apr-2008, egildone wrote:


Wearing dark glasses while fly fishing can be dangerous!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news...10/CHENEY.html

Ed

Cheney - one of my favorite people

His new companions are probably the Saudi monarchy,

Wonderful people also!

They are very concerned about US inflation and and the pillaging and
destruction of our environment.

Geat humanitarians -all
Useful humans

Fred


Lets look at the last year. Democrat controlled Congress. Inflation has
soared, unemployment has increased, oil has skyrocketed, spending has
increased. Vote both parties incumbents out!



Democrats don't "control" Congress. They have a bare majority in the
House and a razor-thin majority in the Senate (including the Democrat in
name only, Joe Lieberman).

Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if something
doesn't change.

The next administration, which I fervently hope will be Democratic, is
going to have a helluva mess to clean up, left by eight years of corrupt
and idiotic Republican policies, both on the domestic and foreign fronts.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote in newsuednU_mo4uiF5
:

Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if something
doesn't change.

I call bull****. If the Dems had guts, they'd stop Bush. It might take a
super majority to overide a veto, but it still takes a simple majority to
pass a bill. The Dems have been caving far too easily.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in newsuednU_mo4uiF5
:


Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if something
doesn't change.


I call bull****. If the Dems had guts, they'd stop Bush. It might take a
super majority to overide a veto, but it still takes a simple majority to
pass a bill. The Dems have been caving far too easily.


Suppose the House passes your great bill with a simple majority. The
Senate either never votes because it can't get past a filibuster; or, if
by some miracle, a few Senate Republicans have the guts to vote for the
bill and vote for cloture, it won't survive a Presidential veto. Be it
stem cell research, be it anti-torture, be it SCHIP, or whatever is your
hot-button issue. That's the way the system works without a clear
majority and a lock on power.

Which, by the way, the Republicans had for six years, and look at the
mess they've gotten us into.

Maybe the Dems could have cut off war funding. It's not clear. I think
Bushco would have defied them and we'd be in the middle of a
Constitutional crisis. But be that as it may, it would have been
irresponsible, IMO. That's too blunt an instrument to get us out of this
trap Bush and Cheney have blundered us into.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in newsuednU_mo4uiF5
:


Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if something
doesn't change.


I call bull****. If the Dems had guts, they'd stop Bush. It might take
a super majority to overide a veto, but it still takes a simple majority
to pass a bill. The Dems have been caving far too easily.


Suppose the House passes your great bill with a simple majority. The
Senate either never votes because it can't get past a filibuster; or, if
by some miracle, a few Senate Republicans have the guts to vote for the
bill and vote for cloture, it won't survive a Presidential veto. Be it
stem cell research, be it anti-torture, be it SCHIP, or whatever is your
hot-button issue. That's the way the system works without a clear majority
and a lock on power.

Which, by the way, the Republicans had for six years, and look at the mess
they've gotten us into.

Maybe the Dems could have cut off war funding. It's not clear. I think
Bushco would have defied them and we'd be in the middle of a
Constitutional crisis. But be that as it may, it would have been
irresponsible, IMO. That's too blunt an instrument to get us out of this
trap Bush and Cheney have blundered us into.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

BS! they are both feeding at the trough. They overspent for how many years
when they had a Democrat Supermajority? Only reason Clinton somewhat
balanced the budget, is revenues increased from the dot.bomb debacle faster
than they could spend them. How much did spending go up during all those
Clinton years? Including the first 2 years. It was a Democrat controlled
Congress that put in "Baseline Budgeting" that built in a yearly 13%
increase.

Calif Bill wrote:

BS! they are both feeding at the trough. They overspent for how many years
when they had a Democrat Supermajority? Only reason Clinton somewhat
balanced the budget, is revenues increased from the dot.bomb debacle faster
than they could spend them.

Clinton didn't "somewhat balance the budget." He balanced the budget.

In fact, he did more. At the end of his administration we were running
a fat surplus -- so much so that Alan Greenspan thought our biggest
problem would be paying own the national debt too fast! (Look it up.)

When Clinton entered office in 1992 with a Democratic majority in
Congress he raised taxes, rather modestly, and mostly on upper-income
people. The Republicans were all gloom and doom -- it would lead to a
recession!

Instead, it restored the faith of the financial markets that the US
could actually meet its obligations, and we entered a period of
enormous, unprecedented economic growth.

That was then. This is now.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Apr 13, 6:08*pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"rw" wrote in message

m...





Scott Seidman wrote:
rw wrote in newsuednU_mo4uiF5
:

Until there's either a veto-proof Democratic majority in the Senate
and/or a Democrat in the White House, they are essentially powerless to
change the disastrous course the Bush administration and his party have
set us on. That's the way the system works, and God help us if something
doesn't change.

I call bull****. *If the Dems had guts, they'd stop Bush. *It might take
a super majority to overide a veto, but it still takes a simple majority
to pass a bill. *The Dems have been caving far too easily.

Suppose the House passes your great bill with a simple majority. The
Senate either never votes because it can't get past a filibuster; or, if
by some miracle, a few Senate Republicans have the guts to vote for the
bill and vote for cloture, it won't survive a Presidential veto. Be it
stem cell research, be it anti-torture, be it SCHIP, or whatever is your
hot-button issue. That's the way the system works without a clear majority
and a lock on power.

Which, by the way, the Republicans had for six years, and look at the mess
they've gotten us into.

Maybe the Dems could have cut off war funding. It's not clear. I think
Bushco would have defied them and we'd be in the middle of a
Constitutional crisis. But be that as it may, it would have been
irresponsible, IMO. That's too blunt an instrument to get us out of this
trap Bush and Cheney have blundered us into.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

BS! they are both feeding at the trough. *They overspent for how many years
when they had a Democrat Supermajority? *Only reason Clinton somewhat
balanced the budget, is revenues increased from the dot.bomb debacle faster
than they could spend them. *How much did spending go up during all those
Clinton years? *Including the first 2 years. *It was a Democrat controlled
Congress that put in "Baseline Budgeting" that built in a yearly 13%
increase.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This must be entertaining for you, pretending the last 6+ years just
didn't happen. Kinda-like playing "Fuher Bunker," sending out
dispatches to non-existant divisions. Fun times, take a riduculous
stance and then defend it to ehaustion. Reminds me of a "catch and
release" thread.

Bottom line is that most sensible people are saddened for what's
happened to our country, and realize that facing the pain ahead
requires adult grade honesty if we are to fix the mess and move
forward.

Dave

Dave