Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message news:c1e347

...to go crazy with his brand of
right-wing extremism.

Ref Answer C, above.

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article , Jim wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/...ger/index.html

In Arizona, Judy Donovan says she feels desperate for a new president.
In Tennessee,

Tennessee was Al Gore's home state was it not? And the good voters
there didn't even carry him in the last elections.

Obviously Judy is out of sync (off her meds?) with the rest of the voters
in Tennessee or they are all just not desparate enough yet?

lol




Robert Wilson says he finds the president revolting. In
Washington state, Maria Yurasek says she'd vote for a dog if it could
beat President Bush.

nobody can beat President Bush....not even Hillary....

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article , Harry Krause wrote:


John Gaquin wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

......a Democratic Party more unified and more focused,

I suppose that's why there were 10 candidates (or, was it 11?) beating the
s%#t out of each other for 6 months -- because they were unified and
focused.



The party is unifed and focused on delivering the country from the evils
of the neofascist Republicans. Unlike Republicans, Democrats have
diverse opinions on who is best qualifed to wield the sword and slay the
evil dragon (via the political process, of course). The party has tested
its standard bearers and has eliminated all but two serious candidates.
I don't believe anyone ever gave Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich much of
a chance.

Rigghhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (primal scream ala' Dean)

lol

u r 2 funny old man

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article , Harry Krause wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:

"bb" wrote in message

Ok, Bush won the Presidency. But, he certainly didn't win a mandate
for his extremist policies.
A) I never heard anyone claim that W received a mandate in the election of
2000.

B) W received his mandate on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Bull. No one gave Bush carte blanche to go crazy with his brand of
right-wing extremism.

don't delude yourself.

Bush is a ferking moderate....

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article , Harry Krause wrote:

Jim wrote:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/...ger/index.html

In Arizona, Judy Donovan says she feels desperate for a new president.
In Tennessee, Robert Wilson says he finds the president revolting. In
Washington state, Maria Yurasek says she'd vote for a dog if it could
beat President Bush.


I need maria's address...i have some extra Tellow Dog Democrat pins.

Betchya you can find her he

http://www.bestialitylovers.searchengine.com

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article . net,
says...
In article , Harry Krause wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:

"bb" wrote in message

Ok, Bush won the Presidency. But, he certainly didn't win a mandate
for his extremist policies.
A) I never heard anyone claim that W received a mandate in the election of
2000.

B) W received his mandate on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Bull. No one gave Bush carte blanche to go crazy with his brand of
right-wing extremism.

don't delude yourself.

Bush is a ferking moderate....

With an inability to carry anything personally. This "ferker" is
programmed by his handlers.

Did you see him with Tim Russert? The "ferker" is missing most of his
brain cells or never started with many.

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

In article , jps wrote:

In article . net,
says...
In article , Harry Krause
wrote:

John Gaquin wrote:

"bb" wrote in message

Ok, Bush won the Presidency. But, he certainly didn't win a mandate
for his extremist policies.
A) I never heard anyone claim that W received a mandate in the election
of
2000.

B) W received his mandate on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Bull. No one gave Bush carte blanche to go crazy with his brand of
right-wing extremism.

don't delude yourself.

Bush is a ferking moderate....

With an inability to carry anything personally. This "ferker" is
programmed by his handlers.

Did you see him with Tim Russert? The "ferker" is missing most of his
brain cells or never started with many.

For lacking so many "brain cells" as you say this "ferker" sure has been
a lot more successful in life than you with all of your liberal education eh?

But of course Bush had the silver spoon factor and many helping hands
up and you obviously had nothing.

Can your restribution of the wealth ideals compensate for this lack
of familial unity and natural progression?

Using Deja-news (Usenet archiver) it sadly appears that you are not
quite the free-thinker and man that you fancy yourself as. It seems
many of your words echo that of a Mr. Harry Krause right down to
the letters. Would be a stretch to call Harry YOUR handler? Why
don't you call him "daddy"? He is old enough.

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"bb" wrote in message

Ok, Bush won the Presidency. But, he certainly didn't win a mandate
for his extremist policies.
A) I never heard anyone claim that W received a mandate in the election of
2000.

B) W received his mandate on the morning of September 11, 2001.

C) You may consider some or all of his policies "extremist", but that is
your personal opinion, not general fact.

There has been no attempt to consider the
desires of the majority of voters who didn't vote for the rascal.

D) It may have slipped your attention, but we do not live in a democracy,
wherein the voters are consulted on virtually all matters. We live in a
Constitutional Republic. We send elected persons to staff the government
and to make decisions according to their best judgment. If we don't like
their judgment, we vote them out the next time around. This business of
consulting focus groups, or directly polling constituents, prior to any
decision-making, is, in my view, an abdication of responsibility under the
Constitution.

I just love how, no matter WHAT a republican does, the fellow
republicans just CAN'T seem to say, "he messed up", or "he was wrong".
It's that same tow the line, blinders on, goose stepping crap that
leads you guys to call anyone who disagrees with Bush a "traitor", or
a "communist", and on and on. Funny how BushCo, whom you guys refer to
as a UNITER, has this country the most divided that it's ever been!

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

basskisser wrote:
"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...

"bb" wrote in message

Ok, Bush won the Presidency. But, he certainly didn't win a mandate
for his extremist policies.

A) I never heard anyone claim that W received a mandate in the election of
2000.

B) W received his mandate on the morning of September 11, 2001.

C) You may consider some or all of his policies "extremist", but that is
your personal opinion, not general fact.

There has been no attempt to consider the

desires of the majority of voters who didn't vote for the rascal.

D) It may have slipped your attention, but we do not live in a democracy,
wherein the voters are consulted on virtually all matters. We live in a
Constitutional Republic. We send elected persons to staff the government
and to make decisions according to their best judgment. If we don't like
their judgment, we vote them out the next time around. This business of
consulting focus groups, or directly polling constituents, prior to any
decision-making, is, in my view, an abdication of responsibility under the
Constitution.


I just love how, no matter WHAT a republican does, the fellow
republicans just CAN'T seem to say, "he messed up", or "he was wrong".
It's that same tow the line, blinders on, goose stepping crap that
leads you guys to call anyone who disagrees with Bush a "traitor", or
a "communist", and on and on. Funny how BushCo, whom you guys refer to
as a UNITER, has this country the most divided that it's ever been!

Gotta disagree with this last statement. The country was more divided
in the 1850s and 60s with the civil war, but this comes next (at least
so far)

Survey: Anger against Bush growing louder
 

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 08:21:04 -0500, Jim wrote:


Gotta disagree with this last statement. The country was more divided
in the 1850s and 60s with the civil war, but this comes next (at least
so far)

While I wouldn't call GWB a "uniter", this country has been through some
very divisive times. Recently, I would call the Vietnam era more divisive
than this.