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
m:


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

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
om:


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.

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

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.

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

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

queenie wrote in
:

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

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

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.

The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on
both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate,
financial houses and many CEOs.


--
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?

RD (The Sandman) wrote:
queenie wrote in
:

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

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

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.

The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on
both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real
estate, financial houses and many CEOs.

And the health care reform has NOTHING to do with Bush.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:24:33 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)"
wrote:

queenie wrote in
:

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

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate
due to the disastrous policies of the previous administration. Give
him time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy
come first. Geez!!

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.

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". And I
think if Bush stayed in Afghanistan and didn't veer off to Iraq, there
might not be any war going on now.

The economy faltered due to errors, lack of oversight and failures on
both sides of the aisle, not to mention greed on the part of real estate,
financial houses and many CEOs.

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

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

On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:06:32 -0400, queenie wrote:

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

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.

He's been in office TEN months and he already has a lot on his plate due
to the disastrous policies of the previous administration.

That's about enough that stupid bleat you've adopted.


It doesn't take time to *not* force through "emergency" billions
(trillons?) that won't be spent for years.

It doesn't take time to keep to a promise to make bills available to the
public before signing them.

It doesn't take time to *not* dismiss the question I referred to above.

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




Give him
time. Right now, the wars, health care reform and the economy come
first. Geez!!

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.