Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:

Joe wrote:
Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. economy grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate
in the third quarter, faster than the government initially estimated as
companies boosted inventories in September to meet the surge in demand.

You be sure and let us know when the buttwipe in the White House
replaces the three million jobs lost on his watch.


Spin, spin, spin away, spin right up and down. Add some crud, and rake
the mud. You sure look like a clown.......


All that at 7:30 in the morning.... It's gonna be a good day!


Dave



Spin? Tell that to those 3 million Americans who had decent factory jobs
before the dumfoch in the White House bought his way in.


It's certainly spin if you believe that Bush (or any other single
person) was somehow responsible for the downturn in jobs. Economic
trends occur independently of politics. The recession was already well
underway before Bush was even elected, so tell me again how your
interpretation is anything other than plotical spinmeistering.

Dave



1. Of course Bush is responsible. He's running the ship of state. The
buck stops on his desk.

2. Sometimes.

3. No, the recession was nothing more than a little blip when Bush
presumed office.

4. This country is in desperate need of massive spending on its
infrastructure. Bush could have gone to Congress with enormous public
works proposals that would have rebuild much of what needed rebuilding,
and would have put millions of Americans back to work at good-paying
jobs. Instead, Bush blew the surplus on tax cuts for the rich and is
spending the future on his political war against Iraq.

Bush is a disaster.

--
Email sent to is never read.

Well that's better news.

Sort of like the football player who fumbles the ball 17 times in a row, but on
his 18th carry makes a first down. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

Well that's better news.

Sort of like the football player who fumbles the ball 17 times in a row, but on
his 18th carry makes a first down. :-)


If he wins the game, those fumbles no longer matter.....


Dave

Gould 0738 wrote:

Well that's better news.

Sort of like the football player who fumbles the ball 17 times in a row,
but on
his 18th carry makes a first down. :-)


If he wins the game, those fumbles no longer matter.....


Dave


One first down wins the game? Great! Seattle is Superbowl bound. :-)

Gould 0738 wrote:

Gould 0738 wrote:

Well that's better news.

Sort of like the football player who fumbles the ball 17 times in a row,
but on
his 18th carry makes a first down. :-)


If he wins the game, those fumbles no longer matter.....


Dave

One first down wins the game? Great! Seattle is Superbowl bound. :-)

It does if the first down happens in the last 1:40 minutes of the 4th
quarter, and your team is up by one score.

The point is, of course, that any mistakes that may have been made
during a game (or policy) will be largely overlooked is the eventual
outcome is positive.

Dave