On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400 billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me. If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.

If you post it, you are responsible for it. You are the one who used the 'well
researched and verified' phrase about a bull**** news article.

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to
that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the
program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen
that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400
billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program
would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months
after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that
the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration
withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told
Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program
will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion
but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling
the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of
the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug
companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According
to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social
Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to
those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal
programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows
he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still
acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no
wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I
EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me.
If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are
projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are
responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.

If you post it, you are responsible for it.
Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule?

On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to
that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the
program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen
that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400
billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program
would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months
after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that
the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration
withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told
Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program
will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion
but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling
the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of
the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug
companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According
to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social
Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to
those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal
programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows
he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still
acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no
wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I
EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me.
If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are
projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are
responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.

If you post it, you are responsible for it.
Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule?

Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who is? No
one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be able to say
whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no accountability is to
exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof?


Also, you forgot to address this post:

--------------------------------------------------------------
On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa

Excerpt:
The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to 9-11
about
al-Qaida and
its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001,
according to
a secret report
by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report,
written last
August,
but kept from the American people until after the election
said
five
security warnings
mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two reports
concerned
suicide operations
not connected to aviation.


Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you
trying
to pin
this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-)
And the buck stops where?

God. It is all his fault.

Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex
than
that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it
weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that
doesn't
exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much more
peaceful place.

Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent?

Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and
are thus offended when not doing so.
Why do atheists

argue so strenuously against the existence of something that doesn't
exist? I've
never been able to understand that.

I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something
non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If you
notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful place
without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have
been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group
trying to force their brand of religion on another.

Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality?

No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality. But,
then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done,
and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing
liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes.

Is Kerry's narrow
mentality the reason he lost the election?

Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree with
him, lost him the election.

There are a lot of Democrats who are
believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality?

You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking?
Or, does
'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God?

Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality". And, I
never said that any particular political party didn't have some people
with narrow minds.


John H

It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you believe.

Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything?

When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!" Do you
really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God fearing"?
Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is 'narrow
mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes

John H wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 11:40:29 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 14 Feb 2005 05:13:17 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"

wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message

ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush
administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on
the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to
that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the
program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address
as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen
that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400
billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program
would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months
after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that
the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration
withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on
the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told
Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug
program
will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551
billion
but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was
selling
the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs
of
the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug
companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost.
According
to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks,
why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social
Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to
those
in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal
programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical
insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the
'10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already,
liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker
shows
he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you
mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still
acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no
wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I
EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries
me.
If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are
projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are
responsible
for its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Really? So, any article, or news piece anywhere in the world, I'm
personally responsible for? That's just ignorant, John.

If you post it, you are responsible for it.
Really? Show me that rule. Or is it just YOUR rule?

Let's see. Are you saying you are not responsible for your posts? Who
is? No
one? If no one is responsible for his posts, than anyone should be
able to say
whatever they wish without any accountability. True? If no
accountability is to
exist, then why do you continuously ask for proof?


Also, you forgot to address this post:

--------------------------------------------------------------
On 14 Feb 2005 09:22:47 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


John H wrote:
On 11 Feb 2005 11:07:53 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


JimH wrote:
"Jim," wrote in message
...
JimH wrote:

"Jim," wrote in message
...




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...us/sept_11_faa

Excerpt:
The FAA received repeated warnings in the months prior to
9-11
about
al-Qaida and
its desire to attack airlines from April to Sept. 10, 2001,
according to
a secret report
by Bush's 9-112 Whitewash Committee. The commission report,
written last
August,
but kept from the American people until after the election
said
five
security warnings
mentioned al-Qaida's training for hijackings and two
reports
concerned
suicide operations
not connected to aviation.


Yes, the FAA failed to act. Is that your point or are you
trying
to pin
this on the President? Me thinks so. ;-)
And the buck stops where?

God. It is all his fault.

Ah, you're finally getting something, but it's a tad more complex
than
that. It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing! If it
weren't for the people of the world worshiping something that
doesn't
exist, and can't be proven to exist, the world would be a much
more
peaceful place.

Why do you capitalize the name of something that is nonexistent?

Personally? Purely out of respect of those who don't understand, and
are thus offended when not doing so.
Why do atheists

argue so strenuously against the existence of something that
doesn't
exist? I've
never been able to understand that.

I'm glad you've admitted that you are worshiping something
non-existent. Further, I don't "argue strenuously against" it. If
you
notice, I simply stated that the world would be a more peaceful
place
without it. Take a trip through history, you'll see that there have
been many, many lives lost in the pursuit of one particular group
trying to force their brand of religion on another.

Do all the God-fearing Democrats have a narrow mentality?

No, I never, ever said "all" of ANY group have a narrow mentality.
But,
then, you ask silly question, after question, then when all is done,
and you finally understand, you'll either post "Harry is a ****ing
liar" many, many times, or post many, many childish jokes.

Is Kerry's narrow
mentality the reason he lost the election?

Nah, I don't think that his religious views, while I don't agree
with
him, lost him the election.

There are a lot of Democrats who are
believers in God. Are they all suffering from a narrow mentality?

You've asked that twice. Have you been drinking?
Or, does
'narrow mentality' apply only to Republicans who believe in God?

Again, I never said "all" of ANY group has a "narrow mentality".
And, I
never said that any particular political party didn't have some
people
with narrow minds.


John H

It seems as though you have a very hard time stating what you
believe.

Could you show me where I said I worshipped anything?

When you say, "It's the narrow minded mentality of the God fearing!"
Do you
really mean, "It's the narrow minded mentality of *some of* the God
fearing"?
Are there *any* God-fearing Democrats who are 'narrow minded'? Is
'narrow
mindedness' purely an affliction of God fearing Republicans?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



John H

My god, you just can't comprehend what you read, can you?

P.Fritz wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On 11 Feb 2005 10:06:48 -0800, "basskisser"
wrote:


P.Fritz wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jim, wrote:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index.html

Follow the money

If anyone is still inclined to give the Bush administration
the
benefit
of the doubt on its budget numbers, the latest news on the
cost
of
the
Medicare prescription drug benefit should put an end to that.

You remember the prescription drug benefit. That's the
program
the
president pitched in his 2003 State of the Union address as
costing
$400
billion. The White House strong-armed the bill through
Congress
in
November 2003, again assuring everyone who would listen that
its
cost

over 10 years would not exceed a CBO estimate of $400
billion.
Then,
two
months later, the White House revealed that the program would
actually
cost $534 billion over 10 years. And then, a few months after
that,
it
became clear that the administration knew all along that the
$400
billion number was fantasy. Internal administration
projections
put
the
10-year cost at $551 billion, but the administration withheld
that
information from lawmakers as they debated and voted on the
Medicare
benefit. In March 2004, the chief actuary for Medicare
revealed
that
the
administration had threatened to fire him if he told Congress
about
the
$551 projection.

And that brings us to today's news. The administration's
Medicare
chief
revealed Tuesday night that the prescription drug program
will
actually
cost not $400 billion, not $434 billion, not $551 billion but
$732
billion over the next 10 years. That's an increase of 83
percent
over

what the administration told Congress when it was selling the
bill --

enough money in real dollars to cover the entire costs of the
wars in

Afghanistan and Iraq to date or to eliminate the budget
deficit
that
the
administration projects for 2009.

The news won't sit well on Capitol Hill, where Democrats
already
viewed
the prescription drug program as a gift to big drug companies
and
Republicans were already unhapppy about the cost. According
to
the
New
York Times, Rep. Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday that the new
projection
for
Medicare "destroys the credibility of the Bush
administration."
If
the
White House was so far off on Medicare, Emanual asks, why
should
anyone
believe the administration's projections for Social Security?

A better question might be, why is anyone surprised?

So you are against providing cheaper prescription drugs to
those in
need?
I thought good liberals loved to see more big federal programs
so
the
people were dependant on the government.

And I am curious...how much was the federal medical insurance
plan
pushed
by Hillary, Kennedy and Kerry going to cost us?


Of course asslicker fails to mention that the change in the
numbers
is due
to the change in the calendar years that is included in the '10
year'
costs.
Liebrals with half a brain admitted to that already, liebrals
without
a
brain......like those that post on this NG......are stilll
chanting
the
erroneous liebral talking points. Once again asslicker shows he
is
clueless.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?

Fritz, you HONESTLY need to seek professional help for you mental
problems. Where does this stuff get into your head? First, *I*
didn't
write the ****ing article. That in itself shows that you can't
comprehend what you read. Secondly, I see that you are still acting
like a little child with the name calling. Grow up. It's no wonder
your
wife ran off, who could stand to be around someone who acts as
shallow
and childish as you. Third, where to HELL has the idea that I EVER
beat
my wife gotten in to your head? The third one is what worries me.
If
that is in your head, it's purely dillusional or you are
projecting,
and you should seek help.

Regardless of who wrote the article, you, basskisser, are
responsible for
its
accuracy. You are the first to note that articles written by
newspaper
folks are
'well researched and verified'.

Asslicker isn't even a 'boy' enough to admit when he is wrong.

I wonder if he has stopped beating his wife yet?



Hmm, Fritz, I am more of a man than you will ever be. Let's recap,
shall we? YOU frequent usenet support groups for your divorce, and to
help raise your kid. YOU post lies and ennuendos about me, with NO
evidence or fact to back them up. YOU post nothing here but childish
name calling. Nobody likes YOU on ANY of the newsgroups I've looked at,
because of your condescending, childish, and petty actions. Grow up.