On Sep 1, 7:38*pm, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:26:46 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:



uh..i AM paying attention. YOU are not. sorry. that's why i know what
the rich did.

Paying attention now is like closing the barn door after the horses
are out. It's too late. You should havid attention when 'the rich'
took all your money. What a jokester;.

ROFLMAO!! they've gamed the system. they took our pensions. they made
us pay for our retirement. i know you're not paying attention because
you deny this happened as well as denying its scope. you're in denial
like a good little sock puppet

you're not even paying attention enough to realize youre drowning...

On Sep 1, 7:45*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:29:38 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Sep 1, 6:22*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:19:00 -0400, JustWait

wrote:
In article ,
says...

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a *better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic

Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

I remember watching the towers come down and the horror of seeing all
those innocent people killed. *I was ****ed that our leadership
allowed that to happen. *Didn't give a thought to Bill Clinton.
If something like that happens again I won't give a thought to GWB.
It'll be on Obama's back. *I won't care if it was planned while GWB
was in office.
Same with the economy. *It's Obama's economy.

uh...,no. you can make up whatever rules *you want. you can sit in
blissful denial pretending bush and his spending policies had nothing
to do with our state today. *but try walking out a 10th story window.
your denial of the effects of gravity won't save you

I'm not blaming GWB for escalating unemployment.
GWB is gone. *Obama is responsible.

no, he's not. not unless you think a moving train can be stopped by
holding your hand out and saying 'whoa'

See, I went through this with Eisboch, who somehow ended up putting
the economy on Bush's back, and now with you, from the other side of
the political spectrum.
Bush is gone.
Obama is POTUS.

and you deny a factor called 'time'. history happens in time. unless
you're at the event horizon of a black hole where time stops, then
REALITY happens in time

so there's your problem. you're unable to be realistic

I didn't say anything about the causes of the current economy.
I'm talking now. *The past is gone.

no, it's not. there's an idea called 'cause and effect'. bush caused
the problem. we're living with its effects

Jesus, quit living in the past.]

i live in reality. not sure about your planet


Past mistakes are only useful in dealing with the here and now.
If Obama has what it takes, he'll fix the economy.
Simple as that. *

he's no more responsible for the broken economy than the plumber is
responsible for the water flooding your kitchen from the broken pipe

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Sep 1, 1:53*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 31, 5:02*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 31, 3:33*pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...

A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."

Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".

Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--

how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?

how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?

More 'Bush Rationale' which has nothing to do with the Obamacare Act.

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:19:00 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...


A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic


Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

I remember watching the towers come down and the horror of seeing all
those innocent people killed. I was ****ed that our leadership
allowed that to happen. Didn't give a thought to Bill Clinton.
If something like that happens again I won't give a thought to GWB.
It'll be on Obama's back. I won't care if it was planned while GWB
was in office.
Same with the economy. It's Obama's economy.
I'm not blaming GWB for escalating unemployment.
GWB is gone. Obama is responsible.
You guys can blame whoever want for whatever you want.
Don't bother me. Freedom of speech.
It was Dick Cheney boasting/lying about him keeping us safe for "8
years" that got me thinking about the scorecard.
Facts is facts.

--Vic

I watched it too. Wasn't any Americans fault, it was the pig dog cowards
who flew the planes into the towers.

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Sep 1, 3:35*pm, H the K wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 1, 1:53 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:08:59 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 31, 5:02 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:20:48 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:
On Aug 31, 3:33 pm, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...8/31/MNFT19FC7...
A quote, "President Obama, meanwhile, has said don't worry, the plan
"will be paid for."
Here's the problem. For too many questions, the answer is, "Obama said
so." Obama lies. Even you liberals know that, but you condone it by
saying, "Bush lied".
Obama should not be used for any statements. The appropriate sections
of the act should be quoted.
--
how did bush say he was gonna pay for the iraq war?
how did the GOP say they were gonna pay for the tax cuts for the
wealthy?
More 'Bush Rationale' which has nothing to do with the Obamacare Act..
--
uh...no. a comparison is being made between policies of the GOP which
benefit the top 1% and those of the democrats which benefit the middle
class
Uh, uh, uh, uh, the subject was healthcare. Obamacare, to be specific.

uh no. the subject was liars and who steals money. you think obama
does, while you grovel in poverty, courtesy of the GOP.
those who are sycophants of the rich hate the middle class and want
them to be held in poverty...think mexico.
Get over it. You should have paid attention to your assets. A fool and
his money are soon parted. Don't cry over spilled milk, etc. By now
you should get it.
--

i did pay attention. me and a hundred million other hard working
middle class americans who thought the rich would, as they said they
would, provide a decent retirement income if we trusted them

you know...like you continue to say we should...

Remember that herring is sucking on the government teat for his
retirement...he is not in the same loop as those who got screwed by wall
street.

Herr Krause. You can refrain telling what you are still sucking on.

On Sep 1, 6:00*am, H K wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating. *It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. *Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. *You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. *Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

Relax Herr Krause. Your President Elect has been in office for months
now. In fact, he took eight months to double the debt the former
president compiled in eight years, and will probably double the
present debt within the next two years.

But that's alright, Herr Krause. It does seem fairly well known that
you can't see the forest for the trees.

On Sep 2, 2:47*am, TopBassDog wrote:
On Sep 1, 6:00*am, H K wrote:





thunder wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:22:39 -0500, jpjccd wrote:

On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:56:50 -0700, Jim wrote:

In fairness, the budget surplus was due to both parties cooperating.. *It
only took one party a few months to undue the surplus. *Which one was
that?
Any reasonable debate will not be enhanced by citing cynical, biased
pieces written by partisans.

There has never been a "surplus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Not true. *You can have a *budget* surplus and still have debt. *Bush did
inherit a $128 billion surplus.

According to the Repubs here, it just isn't *fair* to keep bringing up
Bush as if he were responsible for the messes Obama inherited.

I mean, just because Bush was the worst president in the history of this
country, and screwed up just about everything he touched, and did so
over eight years, he's been out of office for months now.

Relax Herr Krause. Your President Elect *has been in office for months
now. In fact, he took eight months to double the debt the former
president compiled in eight years, and will probably double the
present debt within the next two years.

which is what bush had planned anyhow. the TARP ideas were floated and
defined by bernanke under bush. and bush agreed

But that's alright, Herr Krause. *It does seem fairly well known that
you can't see the forest for the trees

you right wingers don't know history. even if it's yesterday's history

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 1 Sep 2009 09:19:00 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

A bit over 7 months now.
And thus far no terrorist attacks on the Homeland.
If Obama keeps us safe for 11 more days he'll prove he's a better man
at protecting the citizens of the United States of America from
massive terrorist attack during the first year in office than was GWB.
Then we go from there to other record settings, for good or bad.
I'm keeping score.

--Vic

Holy ****! That is the 88888888 thing you have ever said.. Fact is,
BinLaden didn't start planning 911 on Jan 20, 01 and you know it...
Please don't step into W3fhs' mold of bumper sticker mentality.

I remember watching the towers come down and the horror of seeing all
those innocent people killed. I was ****ed that our leadership
allowed that to happen. Didn't give a thought to Bill Clinton.
If something like that happens again I won't give a thought to GWB.
It'll be on Obama's back. I won't care if it was planned while GWB
was in office.
Same with the economy. It's Obama's economy.
I'm not blaming GWB for escalating unemployment.
GWB is gone. Obama is responsible.
You guys can blame whoever want for whatever you want.
Don't bother me. Freedom of speech.
It was Dick Cheney boasting/lying about him keeping us safe for "8
years" that got me thinking about the scorecard.
Facts is facts.

--Vic

So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?

On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:

So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?

Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.
Who's going to influence today and forward?
GWB or BO?
Only one answer to that.
We get only one decider at a time.
Everybody knows that BO inherited a decrepit house.
Up to him to fix it up or let it deteriorate further.
That's all I'm saying.
A leader has to lead. Frankly, he's starting to disappoint me.
And I've got examples where he's already failed.
The health care fix isn't going well, and he hasn't come out and
appealed to employers and employees to accept pay reductions instead
of job terminations. For patriotic reasons.
That's what a leader does.
And it's doable with the bully pulpit, and he never let out a peep.
Some smart company leadership does that themselves, but others need
prodding. Didn't work with the union maintenance staff where my
brother works, because the union voted it down. So some got
terminated. What that leads to is unemployment draining the gov
coffers, and defaults on loans and mortgages, loss of health
insurance, etc.
Obama could have influenced them and many others who are now
unemployed.
He's done nothing that I've yet seen to reinvigorate manufacturing,
whose loss is at the root of our economic problems.
He's way too tied up with the Wall Street jokers who got us here.
His cabinet is rotten with that trash.
But he's got some time to get it right.
Up to him. GWB is gone. Believe it or not.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote:
So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today?

Never said that. But the history that counts starts today.

Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I
didn't buy the car today?

Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a
bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance.