"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...

He has a habit of doing that lately, especially when he is on the
losing
end
of a discussion. He did the exact same think to me twice just today.

I don't have to reprint your entire post to call "bull****" on a portion
of it.

Struck a nerve Chuck?

Not at all. But I do understand that some statements look even more absurd
when highlighted as the only item on the page, rather than surrounded by
meaningless pap.

When somebody posts a long batch of nonsense leading to a false
conclusion, it
is appropriate to refute the conclusion without having to repeat all the
nonsense.

Bull****.

Bull****.

Convincing argument. :-)

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Bull****.

Convincing argument. :-)

Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?

Gould 0738 wrote:
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



You must be referring to Dim--wit, er, Jim--
You're very sharp, Chuckster...since I put him in my bozo bin and
therefore don't respond to his inanities, he's found himself a new
target of opportunity. If you ignore him, he'll be reduced once more,
and perhaps he'll create himself another right-wing dipstick with whom
to communicate.


--
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
And don't forget to pay your taxes so the rich don't have to!

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Succinct and accurate. Something you should try.

If you find my style tedious or statements inaccurate, why are you
compelled to
(attempt to) read and respond to nearly every one of my posts?



Do you also see black helicopters always following you?

Do you also see black helicopters always following you?

Nope. Just a guy compelled to read material he considers tedious and
inaccurate. How's that for weird?

Now the Dems are complaining about expenditures for health care and
education. Of course, the other complaint is that he's not spending
*enough* on health care and education.

How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg

"thunder" wrote in message
...

Now the Dems are complaining about expenditures for health care and
education. Of course, the other complaint is that he's not spending
*enough* on health care and education.

How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg



Don't forget Congress when you are spreading the blame.

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 17:36:48 -0400, jim-- wrote:


How about size of government?

http://www.brook.edu/dybdocroot/gs/c...ht20030905.pdf

How about pork-barrel spending?

http://www.cagw.org/images/content/p...der/146526.jpg



Don't forget Congress when you are spreading the blame.


Included, but I don't think Bush has used his veto either. (Could be wrong)