On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

On 21/03/2011 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

Obama, pay as you go? Who are you kidding?

PAYGO is meaningless other than the name only. You verspend $ 1.6
trillion a year and you call that pay as you go? Geez....I could sell
you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds....

Pay as you go as opposed to Obama's lips a moving means you spend at or
less that what you take in. Obama lies. The fleabagger ways, lie, lie,
lie, then deny. And when that doesn't work make exuses.

Watch, Obama will be over budget shortly and he will either deny or make
excuses.

Geeze....I could sell
you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds....

Sounds kind of like the last presidential election snerk

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 13:02:46 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 12:40 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

Obama, pay as you go? Who are you kidding?

PAYGO is meaningless other than the name only. You verspend $ 1.6
trillion a year and you call that pay as you go? Geez....I could sell
you a pile of common rocks and call them diamonds....

Pay as you go as opposed to Obama's lips a moving means you spend at or
less that what you take in. Obama lies. The fleabagger ways, lie, lie,
lie, then deny. And when that doesn't work make exuses.

Watch, Obama will be over budget shortly and he will either deny or make
excuses.

You're an idiot. It's exactly what was used previously, and it worked
fine.

On 21/03/2011 3:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

Paygo is so full of holes it isn't funny. Sort of like saying you have
to balance the budget unless you put it on the credit card.

It is a raving joke. Not worth the time, effort or piece of paper it is
written on.

I still stand by Congress should just say balance the budget, no new
debt - end of discussion.

I put more credence to a crack or herion addict that says they will quit
3 years from now, now give me more dope.

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

On 21/03/2011 6:02 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 12:09:57 -0600,
wrote:

On 21/03/2011 11:39 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:14:00 -0700, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:32:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:01:19 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 09:56:01 -0400, John
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:56:05 -0400,
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 12:39:06 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote:

Is Obama about to attack Libya simply to steal their oil for George
Soros? It makes sense considering that Obama gave US taxpayer money
to Soros for drilling offshore Brazil. Remember, this is an admin
that thinks the Egyptian dictator Mubarek was a good guy (Remember
what Biden said about Mubarek not being a dictator). France is just
doing what they always do, backing whoever will supply them with oil
as most of Libya’s oil goes thru France.

Let's take the first question. Is Obama attacking Libya?

Yes. Maybe you've been out fishing for the last couple days.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/u-s...fense-targets/

Of course, if you define 'attack' in certain ways, you could say that Bush
didn't attack Iraq either.

Did Bush put troops on the ground? How is this the same?

Bush didn't put troops on the ground for over 2 years, lets see how it
goes in Libya before we start patting ourselves on the back.

Two years? From when he decided to go after Saddam, perhaps. Other
that you're just rewriting the facts.

Two years of no fly zones, following 8 years under Clinton and over a
year with GHWB.

The question is, what is our exit strategy in Libya?

We don't seem to have one for any of our other military adventures and
we are still in all of them.

Obama is going to use this as an excuse with Congress to continue his
out of control debt-spending. Nothing worse than a liberla-debtor in
debtors denial. Congress should just say balanced budget, you run out
of money you are closed down.

Then the real steps toward recovery will occur.

So, when Obama called for PayGo and the Republicans said no, I guess
that makes it Obama's fault in your tiny brain.

If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

Well that isn't pay as you go. Pay as you go is when you have real
money, and are not running in currency debt. That is, spending is less
than revenue. And Obama wants this long after his 8th year -- which
hopefully the fool will never see.

Pay as you go mean you spend less than your revnue. And that includes
servicing the DEBT.

Hey, the rest is bu11sh1t from the fleabaggers.

Look for gasoline and food to go up 15% shortly just to show you the
effects of creating new inflationary ponzi debt dollars like sheets of
toilet paper buys you.

Want a bet oil goes up 1% tomorrow? Might be 2%.... me, I am laughing
all the way to th bank as my biggest holdings are REAL oilfields.

Ponzi liberal-socialism, screws the unaware every time.

How many barrels of oil are you worth?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

On 21/03/2011 7:43 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

Ya, but look at the debtor that owes money to SS. Seriously, SS has
been raided as a cheap money source by the government. Below market
rate returns for decauses, a slight of government hand in skimming it.

Now the government does not want to have to pay back the SS debt it
owes. And as the US government depeciates the currency, it makes SS
shortfalls worse.

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 18:43:50 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 21:27:47 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:02:41 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 17:43:19 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:40:55 -0700, wrote:



If paygo doesn't apply to the entitlements and the DoD budget it is
about as significant as cutting the NPR budget.

"Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and former Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) director Dan L. Crippen have pointed to PAYGO as
instrumental in establishing the fiscal discipline that gradually
decreased the deficit during the 1990s and ultimately led to large
surpluses."

That was when SS and Medicare were paying their own way. Both are in
deficit now.

They are not in deficit in any way that affects the upcoming budget.
It's nonsense, right-wing fear-mongering.

You are not that stupid. How can you possibly say a program that
spends moire than it takes in is not in deficit?

Medicare has been upside down for several years and SS went upside
down 2 years ago.

She can say that because she knows it will keep you talking to her
snerk