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?