On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out
of office in the worst way.

S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above
animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to
support Bush's agenda.

bb

OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil
prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really
taking off.

Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 14:09:20 -0500, JohnH
wrote:


OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil
prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really
taking off.

Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off?

I don't know about it being in the catagory of "fondish wish", but I
could endure another year of this economy if it means getting rid of
George. Heck, after three years in the gutter, one more doesn't hurt
much more. I honestly can't think of one single thing positive this
president has done.

I guess, keeping to the intent of the thread, fondest wish would be to
get rid of him now, have the economy recover to where it was when he
started, and put about four million more people to work, and somehow
reverse the Iraq quagmire. Hey, one can dream, can't they?

bb

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 15:40:28 +1100, K Smith wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:
Yup, Saddam sure fooled a lot of people!


It's a good thing Saddam is gone.

But if ever we decide that a noble end justifies any conceivable
means,
we will
become a rogue nation.



Chuck saddam could have just opened the place up to free proper
inspection & none of it would have happened. The reason you the UK (&
little us, don't forget us:-)) went in was because we were trying to
protect our citizens from terrorist attacks.


Naw. The reason we "went in" was to prop up a failing president and
his failing presidency.

If it was just to prop up the Presidency, we would of just fired a bunch
of
Cruise missiles at some tents and a factory or two.




Sorry, Bill, but the bloom of post-9/11 was fading off your boy, and he
needed something big to distract Americans from his domestic and foreign
policy failures, so...The BIG invasion of another little country. Bush's
puppetmasters thought that would do it for their boy. So far, it hasn't.

How many body bags do you think will be coming home by elections next
year, Bill?



If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the
Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people still
engage in Bosnia?

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out
of office in the worst way.

S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above
animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to
support Bush's agenda.

bb

OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil
prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really
taking off.

Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat
GWB.

Jim-- wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out
of office in the worst way.

S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above
animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to
support Bush's agenda.

bb

OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil
prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really
taking off.

Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat
GWB.



Be sure and let us know when Bush's "economic policies" add back three
million decent jobs, the number we've lost since he was appointed POTUS.
At that point, we'll be even with where we were, job-wise, when Clinton
left office.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Jim-- wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 10:45:50 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"bb" wrote in message
.. .
On 01 Nov 2003 16:00:06 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Heck, if I was a leader over there, I'd want that mad man out
of office in the worst way.

S'pose any of those foreign leaders have access to the internet?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I can't imagine they do. Aren't they all just a half step above
animals? They just don't seem to understand it's unpatriotic not to
support Bush's agenda.

bb

OPEC is making sure Bush doesn't get an economic boost from lower oil
prices. I think we can depend on them to keep the economy from really
taking off.

Is it your fondest wish that the economy not take off?


John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election.
They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to
defeat
GWB.



Be sure and let us know when Bush's "economic policies" add back three
million decent jobs, the number we've lost since he was appointed POTUS.
At that point, we'll be even with where we were, job-wise, when Clinton
left office.


Actually thanks to Bush's economic policies the economy is rebounding at a
remarkable rate.

The jobs will come, as they have started to do already.

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat
GWB.

And your party spent three years trying to dismantle a President's term
based lying about a blow job.

The dems have nothing on the Republicans when it comes to wasting the
country's resources.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

If he just wanted to prop up his numbers, just had to charge HK under the
Patriot act. You boy showed the way in Wag The Dog. How many people
still
engage in Bosnia?


How many were killed in Bosnia and how much did it cost.

Stupid comparison for you to bring up.

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat
GWB.

You need to change that to "some libs".

The economy has been screwed up for far too long. We need a bit of breathing
room before the economic anthrax of deficit spending accelerated by
irresponsible tax cuts starts coming home to roost.

If the people of the US want to reelect a man who does not read, cannot speak,
and stages elaborate lies with no fear of reprisal, they deserve what they get.

I know the elaborate lie charge is pretty mean, so here's the elaborate lie I'm
referring to......it's been well documented.

An entire aircraft carrier filled with servicemen and women was diverted from
its course back to its home Naval Base in Everett, Washington, and ordered to
steam in circles off the California coast.

Local residents reported that the circling carrier could easily be seen from
the shore.

Bush scurries across the country, tosses his civilian garb into a closet, and
changes into a military looking flight jacket. He's going to visit the carrier.

Normal protocol for the POTUS when visiting an aircraft carrier would be to
land on the deck in Marine One (the presidential helicopter).

Bush arrived on the carrier in a fighter plane. Some simple dupes around the
country have been allowed to believe that he acutally landed the aircraft.

Here's the big lie: Why was Bush arriving by fighter plane? "Because the
carrier is so far out to sea it exceeds the range of the helicopter"

Yeah right. If our helicopters don't have more range than the several miles the
AC carrier was circling off the coast of Californina, we better get the heck
out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the rest of our colonies ASAP.

Instead of being concerned that their president was lying to the entire world,
and telling such an obvious, cheap, and rickety lie to boot.....the right wing
clapped, cheered, hooted, and hollered for Boy George. Oh boy, George. :-(

On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:16:56 -0800, "jps" wrote:

"Jim--" wrote in message
...

Yep. It is the last thing the libs want to see before the election. They
do not have the country's interest at heart, only a deep desire to defeat
GWB.

And your party spent three years trying to dismantle a President's term
based lying about a blow job.

The dems have nothing on the Republicans when it comes to wasting the
country's resources.

You, jps, have just stumbled on the one thing the 'dems' do to perfection. What
has Byrd bought for West Virginia lately?

John
On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD