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

On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:11:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

That you're both "conservatives" is the least of your problems.

Those that want to bitch about Obama's rampant spending need to bring
credentials proving they were also alarmed by Bush handing out
trillions in tax breaks to millionaires -- financed by debt to the
Chinese.

Without that credibility, the complaint is purely partisan and
bull****.

End of story.

Got any credibility? Don't think so.

jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:11:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

That you're both "conservatives" is the least of your problems.

Those that want to bitch about Obama's rampant spending need to bring
credentials proving they were also alarmed by Bush handing out
trillions in tax breaks to millionaires -- financed by debt to the
Chinese.

Without that credibility, the complaint is purely partisan and
bull****.

End of story.

Got any credibility? Don't think so.

This is not a discussion, just a basis of fact.

You have NEVER heard me bitch about any of Obama's policies, even if I
don't agree with all of them. I DID and still do bitch about Bush's
deficient spending, extremely poor choice of cabinet members, and an
administration that entered into a war, without any real objectives, and
no exit strategy. As far as their fiscal policies, the Bush
Administration behaved like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I have and
will continue to complain about the rampant growth of our national debt,
under ANY administration. I absolutely would NEVER be described as a
conservative, at least not as the word conservative is used today, and I
probably wouldn't even be described as a conservative in Goldwater's
era. I did vote for Obama, even though like most voters, I do not
agree, with all of his programs and long term goals. I thought the
Republicans seemed to be floundering around, being pulled and tugged at
by special interest groups, even more than the Democrats.

So my complaint about you having ADD and coming into rec.boats behaving
like a psychotic street corner preacher, yelling at all of the
pedestrians as they walk by, have NOTHING to do with partisan
"bull****". It is just an accurate description of your behavior.



--
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 May 19, 6:47*am, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:
jps wrote:
On Mon, 18 May 2009 23:11:38 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq."
wrote:

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.

That you're both "conservatives" is the least of your problems.

Those that want to bitch about Obama's rampant spending need to bring
credentials proving they were also alarmed by Bush handing out
trillions in tax breaks to millionaires -- financed by debt to the
Chinese.

Without that credibility, the complaint is purely partisan and
bull****.

End of story.

Got any credibility? *Don't think so.

This is not a discussion, just a basis of fact.

You have NEVER heard me bitch about any of Obama's policies, even if I
don't agree with all of them. *I DID and still do bitch about Bush's
deficient spending, extremely poor choice of cabinet members, and an
administration that entered into a war, without any real objectives, and
no exit strategy. As far as their fiscal policies, the Bush
Administration behaved like a drunken sailor on shore leave. I have and
will continue to complain about the rampant growth of our national debt,
under ANY administration. *I absolutely would NEVER be described as a
conservative, at least not as the word conservative is used today, and I
probably wouldn't even be described as a conservative in Goldwater's
era. * I did vote for Obama, even though like most voters, I do not
agree, with all of his programs and long term goals. *I thought the
Republicans seemed to be floundering around, being pulled and tugged at
by special interest groups, even more than the Democrats.

So my complaint about you having ADD and coming into rec.boats behaving
like a psychotic street corner preacher, yelling at all of the
pedestrians as they walk by, have NOTHING to do with partisan
"bull****". * It is just an accurate description of your behavior.

--
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pffftttt... JPS talking about credibility..LOL! Next, he will be
quoting Harry!!