On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:

On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Um... not likely. Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

I terms of principle, I fully agree. In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. *I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

wf3h wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of
economic growth, but of out of control printing of paper money,
which our esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to
kick off and which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights
GW's puny mind could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge
tax of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I
must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence,
avarice, hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value.
*I can hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip
Bush by such a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.


Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?

On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote :



And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--

as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.


And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed

wf3h wrote in
:

On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote
:



And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts
was to fund abortions in other countries... --

as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want
to pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.


And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in
foreign countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed


Sure Dr Mengele, they were just Jews, who cares?

On Oct 13, 1:19*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote :





On Oct 13, 12:48*pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote
:

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts
was to fund abortions in other countries... --

as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want
to pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.

And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in
foreign countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed

Sure Dr Mengele, they were just Jews, who cares?-

i love it when the right wing breaks godwin's laws

i guess he doesn't realize the nazis banned abortion. oh well, the pro
life movement never was pro life. they're just anti-sex

wf3h wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:48 pm, (Gray Ghost)
wrote:
wf3h wrote :


And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--
as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.
Um, our money, other countries. Exactly what is the issue? I don't want to
pay for abortions in the US let alone in foreign lands.

not the issue. try to stay on topic. the topic was the timing.

And what is the moral imperative to steal my money to kill babies in foreign
countries?-

good thing abortion doesn't kill babies, isn't it? i was a volunteer
guard at an abortion clinic that was the target of 'pro life'
terrorists (one was actually arrested during an incident of
terrorism.)

i never saw or heard of a single baby being killed

That isn't the point. The point, which GG obscured with his emotional
response, was that OUR money should not be funding ANYTHING in foreign
lands. We've flushed countless trillions of dollars down the chute
since the end of WWII in other countries, most of which have thanked our
largess with an overwhelming "**** you". I say let them all find their
own ways. Let them die for all I care. Time for the USA to be about
and for the USA and nobody else. Screw the rest of the world.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Oct 13, 10:18*am, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

* * * *Um... not likely. *Runaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. * *They both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

* * * *I terms of principle, I fully agree. *In terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. *Though my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. *Obama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. *I can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. *Amazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! *Jeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Bush never did like baby killing, especially when the USA was paying
for it.

On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
puked:

On Oct 13, 10:18Êam, "lab~rat :-)" wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:17:19 -0400, queenie
puked:





On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:44:10 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Howard Brazee wrote:
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:23:33 -0400, Demon Buddha
wrote:

Ê Ê Ê ÊUm... not likely. ÊRunaway inflation is not a result of economic
growth, but of out of control printing of paper money, which our
esteemed ex-president and congress were quite happy to kick off and
which our current Nobel laureate has taken to heights GW's puny mind
could unlikely wrap itself around.

I don't see that there is a significant difference between the two
presidents here. Ê ÊThey both work for Big Business, with the huge tax
of a huge deficit we will pay.

Ê Ê Ê ÊI terms of principle, I fully agree. ÊIn terms of degree, I must part
company with you a bit. ÊThough my logical mind knew things could be
worse than Bush, my heart didn't really want to believe it. ÊObama
shattered that by putting GW to shame in terms of incompetence, avarice,
hubris, out of control spending, and doing nothing of value. ÊI can
hardly believe that it would have been possible to outstrip Bush by such
a margin, and yet here we are. ÊAmazing.

Get back to me on that after eight years! ÊJeez, the man's been in
office for NINE months!!!!

And amid the major crises in our country, one of his first efforts was
to fund abortions in other countries...
--


as opposed to bush who, as a first act, restricted funding for
abortions in other countries.

Well, from my perspective, that's two positives opposed to one
negative. At this point, if it would cost less out of my pocket for
people to have abortions, I'd be for it.

In fact, as I've said before, I think all women are entitled to ONE
abortion. During said abortion, their reproductive organs are ripped
out with the baby.

There is merit to that plan saving me money in the long run...
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?