2 farmers
 

Two men, each owning 10 acres of land decide to plant potatoes. The first
is just an average guy, works his fields, produces 100,000 pounds of
spuds and manages to make ends meet for him and his family. He is happy.
The second is a real go-getter. Works his fields from dawn to dusk and
often beyond. He yields a crop of 500,000 pounds. His family is lucky
because of his hard work. They are able to enjoy some extras in life.
Every year they take an exciting vacation, put a little aside for the
future, and are content with their position in life.This is a scenario
that could easily occur in the U.S.
Now take the same 2 men in a socialistic society. Most likely they
wouldn't own the land. Their job, according to the gov't is to raise
potatoes for the benefit of the citizens of their country. At the end of
the year man #1 and man #2 have done as described above. Man #2 is
profusely thanked for his efforts by the gov't, but his status in life is
no better than man #1. He gets no fancy vacation or set-aside money for
his future. He has just helped make his fellow man's lives better. How
hard do you think he will work in the second year? Current policies
talked about by Mr. Obama will lead this country in that direction.
Once again, take the same 2 men and put them in Mr. Obamas idea of
America. Same production out of the 2 men. Farmer #1 makes about $75,000
and lives a nice life, comfortable but not an easy life by any means.
Farmer#2 makes about $375,000 and is happy that his efforts let him
afford a few luxuries and ensure his families future. Unfortunately, Mr
Obama comes along and tells him that farmer #1 has needs beyond his means
and you will have to give him some of your money so things are a little
more fair. And the bad thing is, all the g-d d-mn liberal dem's in this
country think this is the fair thing to do. Even if you don't believe
this is fair you vote for the candidares that will institute this kind of
life.
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

2 farmers
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:50 -0500, Ken Marino
wrote:


Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Aw hell. It's easier to tell the "Give a man a fishing pole" story.
I like that one - and fishing is more fun than potato farming.

--Vic

2 farmers
 

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
...
snip stupid-a*s story
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Suggestion:

Don't pay your taxes next time. In fact, don't even file. See what happens.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

2 farmers
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:50 -0500, Ken Marino
wrote:


Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Aw hell. It's easier to tell the "Give a man a fishing pole" story.
I like that one - and fishing is more fun than potato farming.

--Vic


Give a man a fish, and if he's smart, he'll eat the fish and make a bunch of
hooks made from the fishbones. He'll sell 1/2 of them, make a bunch of
money, and buy his fish next time instead of sitting on his ass trying to
catch them. For each fish he buys, he'll sell 1/2 the bones, and soon he'll
be making real money, for which he'll have to pay some tax, which will be
used to buy some other smart guy a fish. Thus, capitalism with some social
responsibility. If you teach him just to fish, he'll be a fisherman all his
life.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

2 farmers
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:07:17 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:50 -0500, Ken Marino
wrote:


Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Aw hell. It's easier to tell the "Give a man a fishing pole" story.
I like that one - and fishing is more fun than potato farming.

--Vic


Give a man a fish, and if he's smart, he'll eat the fish and make a bunch of
hooks made from the fishbones. He'll sell 1/2 of them, make a bunch of
money, and buy his fish next time instead of sitting on his ass trying to
catch them. For each fish he buys, he'll sell 1/2 the bones, and soon he'll
be making real money, for which he'll have to pay some tax, which will be
used to buy some other smart guy a fish. Thus, capitalism with some social
responsibility. If you teach him just to fish, he'll be a fisherman all his
life.

How come he's only selling 1/2 the bones?
I don't get that part. And there should be a punch line.
I still like the "Teach a man to fish" story better.
I'm sorry I let slip the Freudian "Give a man a fishing pole."
Probably something in there about my ma, and me being a commie.
But I deny everything, and I'm not running for Prez.
So maybe I'll get a pass on it.

--Vic

2 farmers
 

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...
"Ken Marino" wrote in message
...
snip stupid-a*s story
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Suggestion:

Don't pay your taxes next time. In fact, don't even file. See what
happens.


If you don't get caught for 7 years you're free, 3 years if the
understatement of income is less than 25%, and absolutely free at any time
if you get a settlement. If interest rates are dropping the IRS usually lags
so one may get pretty good interest on their money if they overpay their
taxes.

I know a person who didn't file state inheritance (not estate) taxes on 4
million dollars, in less than 2 years they won't owe a dime if they don't
get caught.

2 farmers
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:07:17 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:50 -0500, Ken Marino
wrote:


Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Aw hell. It's easier to tell the "Give a man a fishing pole" story.
I like that one - and fishing is more fun than potato farming.

--Vic


Give a man a fish, and if he's smart, he'll eat the fish and make a bunch
of
hooks made from the fishbones. He'll sell 1/2 of them, make a bunch of
money, and buy his fish next time instead of sitting on his ass trying to
catch them. For each fish he buys, he'll sell 1/2 the bones, and soon
he'll
be making real money, for which he'll have to pay some tax, which will be
used to buy some other smart guy a fish. Thus, capitalism with some social
responsibility. If you teach him just to fish, he'll be a fisherman all
his
life.

How come he's only selling 1/2 the bones?
I don't get that part. And there should be a punch line.
I still like the "Teach a man to fish" story better.
I'm sorry I let slip the Freudian "Give a man a fishing pole."
Probably something in there about my ma, and me being a commie.
But I deny everything, and I'm not running for Prez.
So maybe I'll get a pass on it.

--Vic


He needs spares. After all, this guy is a conservative!! LOL

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

2 farmers
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:28:50 -0500, Ken Marino wrote:

Two men, each owning 10 acres of land decide to plant potatoes. The
first is just an average guy, works his fields, produces 100,000 pounds
of spuds and manages to make ends meet for him and his family. He is
happy. The second is a real go-getter. Works his fields from dawn to
dusk and often beyond. He yields a crop of 500,000 pounds. His family is
lucky because of his hard work. They are able to enjoy some extras in
life. Every year they take an exciting vacation, put a little aside for
the future, and are content with their position in life.This is a
scenario that could easily occur in the U.S.
Now take the same 2 men in a socialistic society. Most likely they
wouldn't own the land. Their job, according to the gov't is to raise
potatoes for the benefit of the citizens of their country. At the end of
the year man #1 and man #2 have done as described above. Man #2 is
profusely thanked for his efforts by the gov't, but his status in life
is no better than man #1. He gets no fancy vacation or set-aside money
for his future. He has just helped make his fellow man's lives better.
How hard do you think he will work in the second year? Current policies
talked about by Mr. Obama will lead this country in that direction. Once
again, take the same 2 men and put them in Mr. Obamas idea of America.
Same production out of the 2 men. Farmer #1 makes about $75,000 and
lives a nice life, comfortable but not an easy life by any means.
Farmer#2 makes about $375,000 and is happy that his efforts let him
afford a few luxuries and ensure his families future. Unfortunately, Mr
Obama comes along and tells him that farmer #1 has needs beyond his
means and you will have to give him some of your money so things are a
little more fair. And the bad thing is, all the g-d d-mn liberal dem's
in this country think this is the fair thing to do. Even if you don't
believe this is fair you vote for the candidares that will institute
this kind of life.
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Always enjoy getting 6 responses to a post with nobody actually adressing
the post. Yeah I know, teach him to fish and be self-sufficient, not
depend on the gov't really helps.

2 farmers
 

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Always enjoy getting 6 responses to a post with nobody actually adressing
the post. Yeah I know, teach him to fish and be self-sufficient, not
depend on the gov't really helps.


You said this, not I.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

2 farmers
 

http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

2 farmers
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember it
spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

2 farmers
 

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember it
spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

2 farmers
 

Ken Marino wrote:
... Farmer #1 makes about $75,000
and lives a nice life, comfortable but not an easy life by any means.
Farmer#2 makes about $375,000 and is happy that his efforts let him
afford a few luxuries and ensure his families future. Unfortunately, Mr
Obama comes along and tells him that farmer #1 has needs beyond his means
and you will have to give him some of your money so things are a little
more fair. And the bad thing is, all the g-d d-mn liberal dem's in this
country think this is the fair thing to do. Even if you don't believe
this is fair you vote for the candidares that will institute this kind of
life.
Don' even bother with the expected comeback. I'm sure the amount of
potatoes and the expected $$ return figures aren't accurate. But plug in
accurate numbers and you get the same results. Spread the (SOCIALISM AT
IT'S BEST) wealth.

Yes, I'm sure you don't want the expected "comeback," but I can't
resist. Let's consider the current tax structure. Right now, with the
Bush tax cuts, the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who
would actually pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of
income. This is after we put in the SS taxes and the average local
taxes. Someone like "Joe the Plumber" pays slightly less than either,
but all of them are now within a few percentage points.

How would the McCain or Obama plans affect the two farmers? The less
wealthy farmer would receive almost identical tax breaks, roughly $1500,
under the two plans. In the McCain plan, however, the wealthy farmer
gets a hefty tax cut, pocketing well over $20,000, and in fact paying
considerable less by percentage than his neighbor. Under the Obama
plan, the tax might go up about $3000, but it depends on how close his
accountant can get the Adjusted Gross to the break-even point. The
effect of the Obama plan is to essentially "level" the tax rate between
the upper middle class, and the wealthy (though admittedly it raise the
rate on the super-rich).

So what's the bottom line? The $75K farmer gets about the same modest
break with either plan, but $375K farmer pockets over $20,000 with
McCain, but pays about $3000 extra with Obama.

And the very rich? With McCain's plan Cindy McCain (income about $5
mil) get a whopping 9.4% increase in aftertax income, enough to buy
Palin's new wardrobe several times over, while Joe the Plumber pockets $600.

Obama a Socialist? I think not. McCain giving "welfare" to the rich?
Sure looks that that way to me!

2 farmers
 

http://www.taxmeless.com/

2 farmers
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.taxmeless.com/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...Barry_Kent.png

2 farmers
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.taxmeless.com/


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:P...Barry_Kent.png


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...By_Country.svg

2 farmers
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember it
spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!

2 farmers
 

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember
it spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!


So what's the punchline to "the world has ended an only Obama can recreate
it?"

2 farmers
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:49:13 -0400, jeff said:

the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who
would actually pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of
income. This is after we put in the SS taxes and the average local
taxes.

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people? Are you saying its fair that the rich farmer gets a tax cut
more than ten times larger than the other, ever though he only makes 5
times more?

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class. Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income. The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

2 farmers
 

"jeff" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:49:13 -0400, jeff said:

the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who would actually
pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of income. This is
after we put in the SS taxes and the average local taxes.

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high,
and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should
be
cut, no? Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble,
and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax
the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people? Are you saying its fair that the rich farmer gets a tax cut more
than ten times larger than the other, ever though he only makes 5 times
more?

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class. Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of income.
The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local taxes tend
to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what the richest
pay.

I don't think it's fair that the rich get to pay the same price for a loaf
of bread as I do.

2 farmers
 

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff said:

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people?

I'm claiming precisely what I said before. Here it is again in case you
forgot:

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

Ya think SS taxes are too high? Cut them. Ya think property taxes are too
high? Cut them. Ya think sales taxes are too high? Cut them. But don't try
to justify the Robin Hood game by refusing to cut those other taxes just
because they go to your favored causes. That's simply nonsense.

I'm not advocating for large tax cuts. I'm pointing out that what
you're claiming is a "Robin Hood" game is actually the opposite. The
rich farmer is paying about the same in federal taxes as the other; less
when you consider local taxes. McCain wants to give him a MASSIVE tax
break, compared to the modest increase of Obama's plan.

McCain is trying to convince people that its OK to give his wife a 6%
tax break, because he's giving them 1%. Obama just has a different formula.

2 farmers
 

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:49:13 -0400, jeff said:

the wealthy farmer pays LESS in taxes than the other (who
would actually pay the highest rate of anyone), as a percentage of
income. This is after we put in the SS taxes and the average local
taxes.

So, Jeff, ya think the second guy's social security taxes are too high, and
that his local sales and property taxes are too high? Maybe those should be
cut, no?

Oh, you say you can't do that because SS is already in trouble, and the
teachers' union isn't getting enough? So the solution is instead to tax the
farmer that works hard and hand the money over to the one who doesn't?

So are you claiming that rich people should pay LESS than the average
people? Are you saying its fair that the rich farmer gets a tax cut
more than ten times larger than the other, ever though he only makes 5
times more?

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class.

Must be different in your part of the country. In mine, property
taxes are based on the value of the property and the lower the value
the higher the impact of homestead exemption. Has nothing to do with
the income or wealth of the owner.


Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income.

Here again in my part of the country it is based on how much you
spend.

Oh I see, percentage of income is in there. What difference does that
make with regard to property and consumption tax?

Just another of those "share the wealth" advocates.


The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

In total dollars? Oh you must mean as a percentage of income. Hey
let's just become communist and we can get those percentages to even
right out.

2 farmers
 

Frank Boettcher wrote:
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:45:06 -0400, jeff wrote:

As for property taxes, remember that the very wealthy pay much less than
the middle class.

Must be different in your part of the country. In mine, property
taxes are based on the value of the property and the lower the value
the higher the impact of homestead exemption. Has nothing to do with
the income or wealth of the owner.

It turns out that the very wealthy put less of their wealth into their
property. As a national average, the top 1% pay only 1.4% of their
income on property taxes, compared to about 2.5% for the middle class.

Sales taxes are even worse, where the rich pay only
about a quarter of what the middle class pays, as a percentage of
income.

Here again in my part of the country it is based on how much you
spend.

No, its based on how much you spend on taxable items. Big difference
there.


Oh I see, percentage of income is in there. What difference does that
make with regard to property and consumption tax?

If you don't do it as a percentage of income, then are you claiming that
everyone should simply pay the same amount?


Just another of those "share the wealth" advocates.

Share the wealth, share the burden. What's the difference? Taxes have
always been assessed according to complex formulas that take into
account ones status or income. And rich assholes have always tried to
avoid paying. Poor assholes can't avoid paying because their taxes are
built into their paycheck, mortgage, or shopping list.



The rich do pay more in local income taxes, but overall, local
taxes tend to be very regressive, with the poorest paying double what
the richest pay.

In total dollars? Oh you must mean as a percentage of income. Hey
let's just become communist and we can get those percentages to even
right out.

Ah! So you are advocating that everyone pays the same amount. So
that's a $3 trillion fed budget divided by 300 million people, or about
$10,000 per person. So, a family of four pays $40,000 regardless of how
much they make. That works out pretty good for the half of the country
that makes under the family average of about $70K. Social Security
average is what, $14K? We'll just send the widows $333 a month and call
it even! Its about the same for military enlistees. Throw in local
taxes and a third of the country has a take home pay of about zero!

On the other end of the scale, the super rich shouldn't have to pay more
than $10K per head, and shouldn't have to pay local taxes because they
have their own schools and security.

And fire departments should only save houses that have paid insurance.

But you say anything else is simply communism!

2 farmers
 

"jeff" wrote in message
. ..

Ah! So you are advocating that everyone pays the same amount. So that's
a $3 trillion fed budget divided by 300 million people, or about $10,000
per person. So, a family of four pays $40,000 regardless of how much they
make. That works out pretty good for the half of the country that makes
under the family average of about $70K. Social Security average is what,
$14K? We'll just send the widows $333 a month and call it even! Its
about the same for military enlistees. Throw in local taxes and a third
of the country has a take home pay of about zero!


Everyone paying the same amount would certainly limit the size and scope of
the leviathen wouldn't it?


On the other end of the scale, the super rich shouldn't have to pay more
than $10K per head, and shouldn't have to pay local taxes because they
have their own schools and security.

There you have it, the super rich create more school and security jobs. I
wonder if they would extend the services to the not so super rich at a good
price and yet profit from it.


And fire departments should only save houses that have paid insurance.

Why can't insurance companies reimburse fire departments for their services
just like health insurance does for the ambulance ride? There are private
fire fighters that have protected homes from wildfires in California where
the owners have paid for their products and services.

http://rv.progressive.com/rv-insuran...ages-fire.aspx

http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us...FireMedFAQ.cfm

"Whether or not you are a FireMed member, you will always receive the
highest level of emergency treatment and transportation. As a non-FireMed
member, however, you will be billed for the services. You may give the bill
to your insurance company but will be responsible for any unpaid balance.
Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that your insurance will pay in full
for the treatment that you received."

If you're plump watch out:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.c...rge-extra.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_norm...a_vehicle_fire

Oh No! :

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...03/ai_n8953011

2 farmers
 

On Oct 23, 3:04*pm, "Charles Momsen" wrote:
I don't think it's fair that the rich get to pay the same price for a loaf
of bread as I do.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmn, you make me think of the Anatole France quote: "The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

2 farmers
 

Nice quote...

"Frank" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 3:04 pm, "Charles Momsen" wrote:
I don't think it's fair that the rich get to pay the same price for a loaf
of bread as I do.- Hide quoted text -

Hmmmn, you make me think of the Anatole France quote: "The law, in its
majestic equality, forbids both rich and poor to sleep under bridges,
to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."




--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

2 farmers
 

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember
it spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!


So what's the punchline to "the world has ended an only Obama can recreate
it?"


Is this alluding to the fantasy that some repubs have about Obama being the
Messiah?
Just wondering.
I'm voting for Obama because he's not the one that worked so hard for Bush
after Bush crapped all over him in 2000. Obama doesn't have a long and
illustrious history of poor judgement and shoot from the hip decision making
coupled with anger issues.
Now we see McCain trashing Bush like he trashed Washington in general, where
he spent almost 3 decades. This guy would do anything and throw anyone under
the bus to get the big office.

2 farmers
 

"mmc" wrote in message
ng.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...

"mmc" wrote in message
g.com...

"Charles Momsen" wrote in message
...
http://www.libertystickers.com/produ...m-sooo-scared/

Wasn't that the RNC punchline during the 2004 elections? As I remember
it spawned the "security moms" and kept the chicken hawks in office.

If that was the punchline what was the joke?

The world is ending and only Bush/Cheney can save us!


So what's the punchline to "the world has ended an only Obama can
recreate it?"


Is this alluding to the fantasy that some repubs have about Obama being
the Messiah?
Just wondering.
I'm voting for Obama because he's not the one that worked so hard for Bush
after Bush crapped all over him in 2000. Obama doesn't have a long and
illustrious history of poor judgement and shoot from the hip decision
making coupled with anger issues.
Now we see McCain trashing Bush like he trashed Washington in general,
where he spent almost 3 decades. This guy would do anything and throw
anyone under the bus to get the big office.




Which is really too bad. He seemed honorable and I would have considered
voting for him after the way he was treated in 2000 by GWB. He went over to
the dark side in 2004 by supporting Bush, and now it's not any better.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com