On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:26:37 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
:


He promised to close Guantanamo, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc..
within a year. He is not even close to doing either. He was aware of
the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, public opinion, and the goals of his own
party when he decided to run.

But when he was elected and got to read the letter Bush left him in
the Oval Office, reality hit him. And he has to re-think matters.
Keyword, "re-THINK ".

Was Bush president when those wars started or not? And were both
wars still going on when he left? I believe both answers are "Yes".

How quickly you forget all the talk from Democrats about Afghanistan
being the right war.

What is it with you and the war in Afghanistan? Oh, you want to
remind everybody that Bush took his eye off Afghanistan and went to
Iraq and that's why so many soldiers have died unnecessarily.

Nope, I wish for Democrats to keep in mind that this was their war. This
was the war that Pelosi and company said was the right war and the one
that Bush should have been waging. Well, now, they have their wish.
Afghanistan is their war.

All under Bush's watch and his stupid tax cuts. He even gave a tax
credit to people who bought the gas-guzzling Hummer.

With errors from both sides of the aisle. After all, the biggest
collapse in real estate financing was Freddie Mac and Fannie
Mae....under oversight from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd as the House
and Senate Finance Committee chairmen respectively.

The bottom line is there are problems Obama inherited and he has to
resolve them. And he cannot fix EVERYTHING in TEN fricking
months!!!

And not all of them are due to Bush. Until folks understand that
there were errors in regulation and oversight from both sides of the
aisle, we will never fully recover. All people will be too busy
trying to place blame on the other side.

Republican had control of all three branches of government for six
years. They blew it big time and now they want to distract from that
by blaming Obama for not getting anything accomplished in less than a
year. That is why the Republicans, the Party of No, is determined to
see that Obama fails while they gave Bush a blank check to do whatever
he wanted.

Bush's administration was a failure although I believe that history will
show him to be a better president than most think.....Obama's appears to
be headed that way. The problem I have is the next few generations
slowly watching their country go broke trying to fix problems that belong
to both sides of the aisle while spending more time blaming Bush than
doing much of anything.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:29:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
news
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal
wrote:

Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made
public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies"
list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out.

Most mainstream media is owned by big corporations so it's no surprise
that they'd want to defend Faux News.

Nope, freedom of the press is the reason they defend FOX news. The
administration should not be in the business of trying to direct news
outlets.

Very true. But that does not negate what I said.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:21:53 -0400, Zombywoof
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:39:59 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

Problem is, it isn't equal. However, I can see you making the case
now for those who aren't worth anything, to not have to pay anything.

Problem is, your brain doesn't work well or you're just another greedy
*******.

Have a rotten life.

Plonk!

queenie wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:26:37 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
m:


He promised to close Guantanamo, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc..
within a year. He is not even close to doing either. He was aware of
the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, public opinion, and the goals of his
own party when he decided to run.

But when he was elected and got to read the letter Bush left him in
the Oval Office, reality hit him. And he has to re-think matters.
Keyword, "re-THINK ".

At least you admit that reality is a lot different from campaign rhetoric
and promises.




--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

queenie wrote in
:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:29:45 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
news
On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:38:27 -0500, Fiftycal
wrote:

Yah. LIEberals, like Obammy, hate it when their faults are made
public. That's why Obammy wants to put FOX NEWS on his "enemies"
list. Amazingly, even CBS pointed this out.

Most mainstream media is owned by big corporations so it's no
surprise
that they'd want to defend Faux News.

Nope, freedom of the press is the reason they defend FOX news. The
administration should not be in the business of trying to direct news
outlets.

Very true. But that does not negate what I said.

You were stating that Fox News was being defended by other news outlets
because of big business. That isn't the reason. The reason is freedom
of the press and that they realize that they may be the next target if
they **** off the administration by disagreeing openly about some of its
policies.


--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:56:51 -0700, jps wrote:

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:21:53 -0400, Zombywoof
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:39:59 -0700, jps wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:55:22 GMT, KK wrote:

Who are you to say who "needs" money they've made? This entitlement you
feel to others' property is disgusting.

You are an idiot.

We all invest in and support the infrastructure that allows the
enterprising to profit from their good ideas and industry.

Those that profit extraordinarily owe it back to the system in equal
measure.

Problem is, it isn't equal. However, I can see you making the case
now for those who aren't worth anything, to not have to pay anything.

Problem is, your brain doesn't work well or you're just another greedy
*******.

Have a rotten life.

Plonk!

Boy, you told him. I'll bet he's crying because you 'plonked' him.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 12:26:37 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
puked:

He promised to close Guantanamo, pull the troops out of Iraq, etc..
within a year. He is not even close to doing either. He was aware of
the economy, Afghanistan, Iraq, public opinion, and the goals of his own
party when he decided to run.

Patriot Act.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:54:10 -0400, queenie
puked:

Bush's war was Iraq. Both the Democrats and Obama have been saying
that the right war was Afghanistan.....well, now he has it. Don't
blame Bush for the war that the liberals wanted and felt was the right
one.

But Obama never said war with Iraq was the right thing. Now he's
stuck with it. He's been in office ten months and people are bitching
like he's been in office for years.

He's not stuck with it, he volunteered to administer it. If it came
as a big ****ing surprise to him that the troops were in Iraq, he's as
dumb as you are.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:22:47 GMT, KK puked:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 08:43:05 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:00:10 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:20:22 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:53:05 GMT, KK puked:

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 08:07:09 -0400, lab~rat :-) wrote:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:33:08 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:13:31 -0400, "lab~rat :-)"
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:59:14 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:18 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
news:d8ard51tv37dg3lb0g6rotjkj667a9vvd0@ 4ax.com:


That mess was caused by both sides of the aisle, not just one.

Bush tax cuts among other things. Still, Obama is doing what he
can to fix things.

He's not. He has an agenda that runs counter to fixing things.
You don't spend billions upon billions on pointless bull**** when
you inherit a deficit and fix anything.


First, I wouldn't have spent all that money on the stimulus package.
It hasn't netted a single job. I would have attached stipulations
to the bank bailout that they couldn't sit on the money, but had to
get it responsibly into the private sector to stimulate business and
home buying. I would target small businesses instead of using
trickle down economics and handing big bucks to huge corporations.
I would keep taxes low until the recession started heading up.
Health care would be off the table until we got a handle on
Afghanistan and the economy.

That's for starters.

I'd vote for you.

I have to warn you, I have a lot of skeletons in my closet, and
probably a lot of people that would come forward regaling the press
with witness of my misbehavior and sins.

OTOH, maybe that wouldn't hurt me...


Wouldn't hurt you in my esteem. People experimenting with substances -
especially when they're younger - doesn't seem to me to be a good
measure of their adult judgment. Except, that is, if *they* experiment
and then once in the seat of power, decide that it's okay to punish
others who do the same thing.

In other words, hats off to Obama for honestly talking about his past
(unlike W who said some cop-out bull****, or Clinton with the oh-so-
clintony "didn't break the laws of my country" and later "I didn't
inhale") ... but F him for dismissing serious questions about
decriminialization and F him for ignoring the waste, expense, and
injustice of the 60% of federal prisoners who are non-violent drug
offenders.

And I don't care if a candidate enjoys sex. I don't care if they're
married or single. Or divorced. And (I'm sure we'll part ways here) I
don't care if they're gay, either.

How does religion sit with ya?

Hmm. There's a line somewhere but I'm not sure how to define it.

It depends on a few things. How loony a religion it is, for one thing.
And maybe this is wrong, but to me cultural tradition makes up somewhat
for looniness, because raising a child in a certain religion skips that
whole critical analysis thing. I was raised Catholic but didn't think to
question it until I was nine or ten. I'm good friends with an Orthodox
Jewish guy whose entire environment was immersed in religion so much so
that questioning it would be like a fish thinking about living out of the
water.

So - I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, ever. Someone whose philosophy
of life depends on a science-fiction-sounding religion created by a bad
science fiction writer who announced that he wanted to create a religion,
and which requires huge payments of its members to study its works, is
someone completely lacking in reason and unbased in reality.

Two members of semi-loony religions have been viable candidates recently
- Romney and Lieberman. And sorry, Big Lovers, but Mormonism is *this*
(holding my fingers very close together) close to Scientology. The
slightest research into Joseph Smith's life of bull****tery and the
insultingly stupid story that led to his religion would leave no
reasonable person with any doubt of its culty silliness.

Orthodox Judaism is a little different - Abraham's God is the same as
Jesus', the same as Mohammed's. In that sense, it's basic required
suspension-of-all-reason is the same as "mainstream" religions. The
difference, and source of its weirdness, is that its adherents pay far
too much attention (IMO, of course) to a group of alive-but-ancient men
whose interpretations of even more ancient books (which, though passed by
word of mouth for centuries from place to place and language to language,
are scrutinized for numerologist baloney depending on the placement and
arrangement of characters in the text, making Nostradamus dummies look
like Stephen Hawking) are held as the word of God, with the result that
they aren't allowed to turn on a light or push an elevator button on
Saturday. They also can't directly request that someone else do it, but
can stand near someone and wonder aloud "If only someone would turn on my
light, I could read my book".

I think that's all goofy - and if an Orthodox president won't ride in Air
Force One or push The Button on Saturday, he's out. But other than that,
to eliminate them would be to eliminate all Xtians, Jews, and Muslims.
I'm mostly okay with that, but it wouldn't leave any candidates anyone
else would vote for.

Well to make a long story short, I don't have a problem about a
person's religion unless it's the sole voice that guides them.

Take from that what you will...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 18:55:54 -0400, queenie wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:58:26 GMT, KK wrote:


And - even if it did - it's been almost a ****ing *year*, dummy.

You're a real asshole, KK. You always have to resort to name calling.
I'm beginning to despise you.

It's not just "name calling" if it's justified and relevant.

I called you "dummy" because I read for the tenth time your lame excuse
for your worthless president's non-performance. It's a dumb excuse, and
I don't think I've seen anything of consequence come out of you, ever.

You hold up your refusal to back up anything you say as a badge of honor;
your ignorance is paralleled only by your indignance.

In a discussion group, the fact that you're an idiot is relevant in that
it affects the discussion.