On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 21:40:23 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...



yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.

it took 11 years to end the depression of 29. even obama cant end the
damage the right did to the US in 2 years.

and he's involved us in no wars. sorry

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 11:48:06 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:05:02 -0400, wf3h wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:44:35 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Reply:
The deficits are being driven up by overspending

the fact is the deficits are being driven up by bush's tax cuts. THEY
are the largest components of the deficit

your cliche is mindless babbling

REPLY:
Your racist cliché and Bush blame cliché is nothing but a cliché.

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



it's bush's fault because

1. he cut taxes especially on the rich

2. he increased spending by an unfunded drug program added to medicare

3. he increased spending by spending a trillion in iraq

4. he deregulated the markets so that wall street blew up the economy

and yet the right still blames

the black guy


The Bush tax cuts are about a quarter of the deficit (all of the
cuts, not just the $250k people).

gee. and that's exactly what i said. they are the LARGEST component.

The whole nut is $370B a year. The deficit is $1.5T
Repealing ALL of them is a start but not a panacea.
You still need to find $1.13T, either in more revenue or cutting
spending. So far the fed's answer is to print money

gee. i notice the RIGHT was doing this before the LEFT did. AND the
GOP has had congress now for4 months


and hasnt done ****. hasnt cut a dollar. not one. so your statement is
a meanigless cliche

The fact you fail to note it that the Democrats have basically "had
congress" for almost 50 years... But you only want to blame it on the
republicans because they have had one of three parts of the leadership
triangle for four months.. The fact is, the democrats have been in
charge during the whole destruction of our economy.

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 19:52:58 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 23:44:35 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:32:46 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

Reply:
The deficits are being driven up by overspending

the fact is the deficits are being driven up by bush's tax cuts. THEY
are the largest components of the deficit

your cliche is mindless babbling

REPLY:
Your racist cliché and Bush blame cliché is nothing but a cliché.

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



We as a
country are spending $1.60 for every tax dollar collected. How much did
Bush cut the tax collection? Double the amount of Personal Income Tax
collected and we could still not balance the budget. Explain why it is all
Bush's fault. No ****ing cliché. A reasoned response. If another
cliché,
forget about ever being considered as have a brain and not just a waste of
oxygen.

it's bush's fault because

1. he cut taxes especially on the rich

2. he increased spending by an unfunded drug program added to medicare

3. he increased spending by spending a trillion in iraq

4. he deregulated the markets so that wall street blew up the economy

and yet the right still blames

the black guy


Reply:
You are still stupid. Obama has been President long enough to have started
his reelection quest. Why did he not cut spending? Not increase it. Why
did he make Wall Street to big to fail house bigger? Why has he accepted
all the debt from those financial houses now paying Billions of bucks in
bonus money so they could pay those bonus bucks? Why has he not implemented
a tax of 110% on all bonus money over say 1 million bucks? You are so
shallow. It is always some racist or Right Winger that is the problem. You
are a racist in you are like Jessie Jackson. Blame all on race. You must
be one crappy engineer, or at least have no creative ability, as you have no
real though processes.

For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


So when Bush was in office HE spent the money but now when Obama is in
office it is congress spending the money.

It is stupid statements like this that show how mindlessly partisan
you are.

Screw you. Bush pushed us into a war we didn't need nor could afford.
He was the one who pushed tax cuts when none were needed.

Sounds to me you're the partisan, stupid one.

Sounds like you are getting somewhat frustrated with the facts hitting
you in the face. You are indeed as partisan as harry and the rest here.
Mindlessly blaming Bush for things that happened in the last 40 years
while democrats pretty much ran congress as a majority.

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??

The idea that you would suggest that it is as simple as that, shows how
stupid you really are... Tell us what happens if a president doesn't
like the law? Are you going to say he vetos's it? Is that your big
argument??? If so, again, you are stupid. A veto is a lot more
complicated than that, especially if the other side of the political
spectrum holds both the house and senate... You guys are so partisan,
you can't even ask a simple question....

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

In article ,
says...

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
. ..

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

The racists here only support him because he is black... Anyone with a
brain can see that...

--
Team Rowdy Mouse, Banned from the Mall for life!

I_am_Tosk wrote:
In articleR7KdnRQPSsSweSHQnZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d@earthlink .com,
says...
"wf3h" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message
...

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?


For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.

yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??


VETO the ****er!!! Then Congress has to show how bad they are to override
the veto. Bush signed almost all the spending bills he received and those
he should have vetoed he signed with some statement of memorandum. He was
almost as F'ed up as Obama. I am giving the most F'ed award to Obama, as he
came in saying he was going to fix the problems. Got us in to another
couple wars, did not get us out of wars he said he would, and has been a
cheerleader for overspending.

The racists here only support him because he is black... Anyone with a
brain can see that...


You sure play fast and loose with your misinterpretation of terms,
little pile of dog ****.

On Sun, 1 May 2011 08:43:45 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...


gee. i notice the RIGHT was doing this before the LEFT did. AND the
GOP has had congress now for4 months


and hasnt done ****. hasnt cut a dollar. not one. so your statement is
a meanigless cliche

The fact you fail to note it that the Democrats have basically "had
congress" for almost 50 years..

and most of the damage was done by the GOP with the feckless democrats
paralyzed by the class war the GOP is waging. so the GOP is MUCH more
effective at THEIR program of destroying america than the dems are at
saving it.


.. But you only want to blame it on the
republicans because they have had one of three parts of the leadership
triangle for four months.. The fact is, the democrats have been in
charge during the whole destruction of our economy.

the GOP had the congress for almost ALL of clinton's term and almost
ALL of bush' term and now has it in obama's

gee. you kind of ignored that didnt you?

and the GDP increases FASTER under the dems than under th GOP:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

so enough with the right wing bull****, OK? it's all wrong

On Sun, 1 May 2011 08:54:18 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 15:41:25 -0700, wrote:

On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 10:55:51 -0700, "Califbill"
wrote:

"wf3h" wrote in message ...

really? oh. i forgot. you right wingers have your myths and you dont
let evidence interfere with your delusions that the rich are the best
thing that's ever happened to the US.

well, there's always this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...36&emailView=1

aw, damn, it shows the bush tax cuts are driving the deficit

that's a shame, right wnger, isn't it?

you say 'overspending' 'cuz you heard that on rush. it doesnt mean
anything but he said it so it MUST be true, right?



For someone who claims someone else is stupid, you're the one who
thinks Obama is the one who cuts spending. Last I checked its
Congress' job.

You are not part of the problem... you are the problem.


yeah the right wing is pretty stupid

uh...what happens to a bill the pres doesnt like, genius? any idea??

The idea that you would suggest that it is as simple as that, shows how
stupid you really are... Tell us what happens if a president doesn't
like the law? Are you going to say he vetos's it? Is that your big
argument??? If so, again, you are stupid. A veto is a lot more
complicated than that, especially if the other side of the political
spectrum holds both the house and senate... You guys are so partisan,
you can't even ask a simple question....

uh, no it 's not 'more complicated' and you haven't presented any info
to say why it IS

try again.

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.


How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.

Ira may be annexed by Iran. If a Republican is back in the White House,
he might take the proceeds and give them to the contras.

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 12:11:26 -0400,
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 01 May 2011 01:17:19 -0400, wrote:

he HAS ended our role in iraq. less than 50K soldiers there...about as
many as in germany.

How many road side bombs do they have in Germany?

Granted we are down to one or two dead GIs in Iraq every month but
that is one or two too many.

What about Afghanistan?

The ironic thing is Iraq will probably be seen as the successful war.
We may actually come out of that one with a functional government.
In 50 years Afghanistan will still be a corrupt collection of war
lords and tribal areas.
Iraq may be annexed by Iran. If a Republican is back in the White House,
he might take the proceeds and give them to the contras.

That might be an issue if they were both Sunni or Shi'a but it would
be a civil war if the Shi'a tried to take over Iraq.

BTW I was wrong about the current death toll in Iraq. It was 9 in
April as of the 28th.
"Combat troops" is a meaningless term when the main cause of death is
the road side bomb.


What? Another civil war?