On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:20:10 -0600, "John \"C\""
wrote:


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:01:01 -0500, Walter wrote:

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:51:34 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 06:40:24 -0800, rand mair fheal

wrote:

In article , Cliff
wrote:

but the dems would have found another way to pilfer the
country.

It's bushco's program.
THEY run it.

its simpler than that

the treasury is part of the executive they have to get permission
to
spend money from congress but actually spending the money is done
with
the presidents authority who decides exactly what to spend and
when
and who to pay and usually congress leaves many details
unspecified
which the president makes specific

so if there is disgruntlement on how money is being spent until
20 jan
2009 its all up to shrub

the only real responsibility that can be laid on congress is if
they
dont authorize enough spending

Treasury spent about 3 TRILLION not
authorized by congress IIRC. So far as best I can tell.

neoconIt's Clinton's fault.../neocon

Just remember you wrote that when Obama starts tripping all over his
dick
(and he will) and you're looking for someone else to blame.

When (if) Obama ****s up and violates the clear meaning of the
Constitution then I'll blast him appropriately however at this time
America and the world are on an economic downslope entirely of Bush's
making. "Bush" no longer refers just to the idiot son of Bush43 but
to
those who pull his strings and constitute his cabinet too.

It's entirely too premature to attack Obama, "Bush" currently holds
the
White House.
--
Regards, Curly

And you're holding Michael Jackson's tiny pecker with your tongue!

Your Pal,
HJ

Does Salty hang with you guys also?
--
John H.