On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:03:13 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

Republicans will now live with the taste of **** in their mouths for
the next 8 years, probably more.


True statement. What is happening is crap. You apparently like the taste.

Johnson

It's not crap to me, foreigner. Baked Alaska is more like it. An
adult in office capable of making adult decisions based on real need,
not the fantasies of a simple mind.

Did you throw flowers at George Bush when he came to visit your neck
of the woods?

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:03:13 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

Republicans will now live with the taste of **** in their mouths for
the next 8 years, probably more.

True statement. What is happening is crap. You apparently like the taste.

Johnson

It's not crap to me, foreigner. Baked Alaska is more like it. An
adult in office capable of making adult decisions based on real need,
not the fantasies of a simple mind.

Did you throw flowers at George Bush when he came to visit your neck
of the woods?

How does this vapid and void of any content monologue have anything to
do concerning the topic of trade wars with Canada?

It seems as if most of your post can be summed up by your statement ...
" You don't understand the concept. You add nothing to the dialogue.
You don't field arguments about anything. Vapid, void, empty. You
pursue a hobby of buttsniffing."

I would assume after you spend some time in rec.boats you need to wash
your face and shoulders with Lava (heavy duty hand cleaner). I would
also recommend you try their new Lava Liquid, it has moisturizers to
keep your nose from drying out. I am sure the other participants in
rec.boats would appreciate it.
--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects

On Sun, 17 May 2009 07:18:13 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 2009 08:03:13 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

Republicans will now live with the taste of **** in their mouths for
the next 8 years, probably more.

True statement. What is happening is crap. You apparently like the taste.

Johnson

It's not crap to me, foreigner. Baked Alaska is more like it. An
adult in office capable of making adult decisions based on real need,
not the fantasies of a simple mind.

Did you throw flowers at George Bush when he came to visit your neck
of the woods?

How does this vapid and void of any content monologue have anything to
do concerning the topic of trade wars with Canada?

Did you send the same message to "Johnson?" Did you find his message
enlightening?

Buttsniff to heart's content.

jps wrote:

It's not crap to me, foreigner. Baked Alaska is more like it. An
adult in office capable of making adult decisions based on real need,
not the fantasies of a simple mind.

It's almost incredulous that persons like yourself actually believe that
spending trillions of borrowed or printed dollars can be described as
"An adult ... making adult decisions based on real need".

It demonstrates how far removed from reality and common sense you are.

Johnson

On Mon, 18 May 2009 09:15:31 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

It's not crap to me, foreigner. Baked Alaska is more like it. An
adult in office capable of making adult decisions based on real need,
not the fantasies of a simple mind.

It's almost incredulous that persons like yourself actually believe that
spending trillions of borrowed or printed dollars can be described as
"An adult ... making adult decisions based on real need".

It demonstrates how far removed from reality and common sense you are.

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?

I didn't think so.

Is English your second language?

jps wrote:

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?

We weren't discussing Bush. We were discussing Obama's spending.

Your attention span seems to indicate ADD, if not immaturity.

Johnson

On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:45:24 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?

We weren't discussing Bush. We were discussing Obama's spending.

Your attention span seems to indicate ADD, if not immaturity.

I have no intention of discussing Obama's spending with you if you
weren't balanced enough to recognize the falicy of Bush's economic
stupidity.

Did you endorse his two debt financed tax cuts?

Were you okay with him keeping war funding off the budget?

Prove to me that you have a shred of balance and I'll discuss
whatever.

jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:45:24 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?
We weren't discussing Bush. We were discussing Obama's spending.

Your attention span seems to indicate ADD, if not immaturity.

I have no intention of discussing Obama's spending with you if you
weren't balanced enough to recognize the falicy of Bush's economic
stupidity.

You've just labeled yourself an economic idiot with the above statement.

Did you endorse his two debt financed tax cuts?

Let's talk about the debt financed $787 billion "stimulus" bill and the
near $500 billion supplemental spending bill. Which both occured prior
to submission of and above and beyond the FY10 budgets.

Were you okay with him keeping war funding off the budget?

Sure, the war is not going to last forever. Obama's giveaway to the lazy
SOB's who refuse to work is going to bankrupt the US.

Prove to me that you have a shred of balance and I'll discuss
whatever.

Define balance and prove that you have an understanding of the word
yourself.

On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:53:28 -0400, BAR wrote:

jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 15:45:24 -0400, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?
We weren't discussing Bush. We were discussing Obama's spending.

Your attention span seems to indicate ADD, if not immaturity.

I have no intention of discussing Obama's spending with you if you
weren't balanced enough to recognize the falicy of Bush's economic
stupidity.

You've just labeled yourself an economic idiot with the above statement.

Did you endorse his two debt financed tax cuts?

Let's talk about the debt financed $787 billion "stimulus" bill and the
near $500 billion supplemental spending bill. Which both occured prior
to submission of and above and beyond the FY10 budgets.

Were you okay with him keeping war funding off the budget?

Sure, the war is not going to last forever. Obama's giveaway to the lazy
SOB's who refuse to work is going to bankrupt the US.

Prove to me that you have a shred of balance and I'll discuss
whatever.

Define balance and prove that you have an understanding of the word
yourself.

Is your name now Johnson? So soon after stepping for DK the Prick?

Johnson wrote:
jps wrote:

And were you saying the same when Bush was on the road to spending 2
to 3 trillion prosecuting a war in Iraq?

We weren't discussing Bush. We were discussing Obama's spending.

Your attention span seems to indicate ADD, if not immaturity.

Johnson

He is not worth the effort to try to discuss anything. ADD is the
least of his problems.

--
Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq.

This Newsgroup post is a natural product. The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty and in
no way are to be considered flaws or defects