"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Your understanding of "pork barrel" is as convoluted as the rest of your
theory. There are many other reasons that you are not able to understand,
including your very unique "sexual fantasy" concept. For what it is
worth:
Pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term used to
describe
government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a
politician
in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign
contributions or votes. Typically it involves funding for government
programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose
costs
are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and agricultural
subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do not exhaust
the
possibilities. Pork barrel spending is often allocated through last-minute
additions to appropriations bills.

A classic example was fedral funding for the "Bonior Bike Paths" here in
Mich.......

The federal guvmint (i.e. the taxpayers) had absolutely no business funding
such a localized project.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
When politicians make policies which have no clear, sane and
well-grounded
reasons, there is a limited set of conclusions you can come to. It means
their decisions were based on bribery (politely called "pork barrel" or
"conflicts of interest"), religion, or maladjusted personal fantasies.
I'll leave you to choose which apply to Bush. I believe #3 and #2 are
the
motivations he's most conscious of (and I'm being polite by linking the
concept of consciousness to Bush). #1 is most certainly the case as
well,
although that's more of a motivator for his family, who propped him up
for
election, for reasons you MUST be aware of without explanation.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Nope, did very well in school, and stayed awake in class. I just can't
imagine anyone receiving sexual gratification from the Iraqi War. Do
you
get off thinking about it? I sure haven't read anything in the news
about Bush and his fantasy life, have you? What is the deal with you
and
Harry and bizarre sexual fantasies


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in sole purpose is
to
wage war for his own sexual thrills and financial gain.

Doug,
I must have missed the news about Bush's sexual thrills, do you know
something we don't?

I assume you slept through college, eh?

Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against Iraq.
You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons, is Bush
was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a sexual fantasy
of his.


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Your understanding of "pork barrel" is as convoluted as the rest of your
theory. There are many other reasons that you are not able to
understand,
including your very unique "sexual fantasy" concept. For what it is
worth:
Pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term used to
describe
government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a
politician
in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign
contributions or votes. Typically it involves funding for government
programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose
costs
are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and agricultural
subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do not exhaust
the
possibilities. Pork barrel spending is often allocated through
last-minute
additions to appropriations bills.

A classic example was fedral funding for the "Bonior Bike Paths" here in
Mich.......

The federal guvmint (i.e. the taxpayers) had absolutely no business
funding
such a localized project.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
When politicians make policies which have no clear, sane and
well-grounded
reasons, there is a limited set of conclusions you can come to. It
means
their decisions were based on bribery (politely called "pork barrel" or
"conflicts of interest"), religion, or maladjusted personal fantasies.
I'll leave you to choose which apply to Bush. I believe #3 and #2 are
the
motivations he's most conscious of (and I'm being polite by linking the
concept of consciousness to Bush). #1 is most certainly the case as
well,
although that's more of a motivator for his family, who propped him up
for
election, for reasons you MUST be aware of without explanation.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Nope, did very well in school, and stayed awake in class. I just
can't
imagine anyone receiving sexual gratification from the Iraqi War. Do
you
get off thinking about it? I sure haven't read anything in the news
about Bush and his fantasy life, have you? What is the deal with you
and
Harry and bizarre sexual fantasies


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in sole purpose is
to
wage war for his own sexual thrills and financial gain.

Doug,
I must have missed the news about Bush's sexual thrills, do you know
something we don't?

I assume you slept through college, eh?

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq.
You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons, is Bush
was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a sexual
fantasy
of his.

But that is all the liebral have left as they head for the cliff like
lemmings......
************************************************** *************
Even Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Kinsley, no fan of the Republicans,
has noticed. ``It's true that the Republicans are the party of ideas and the
Democrats are the party of reaction,'' he wrote earlier this month.
``Republicans set the agenda, and Democrats try to talk the country out of
it.''

Democrats continue to rely on a world view that crumbles under scrutiny.
Sifting through Democratic positions on numerous different policies, you
find two core beliefs that differentiate their view of the world from that
of Republicans.

First is the belief that redistributing income is the most important
objective of government. Second is the belief that high tax rates don't
hurt.

These beliefs create two problems for Democrats. The first is that if you
assume they're correct you would find the two beliefs lead logically to
highly unpopular policies. If equality is so wonderful, one should be
willing to increase marginal tax rates in the U.S. on anyone who has an
income higher than the median (about $43,000).

Tax increases are indeed recommended by left-wing intellectuals. New York
Times columnist Paul Krugman, for example, recently called for the U.S. to
raise taxes as a share of gross domestic product from the current 17 percent
to 28 percent -- a 65 percent increase. Good luck to the politician who
tries to convince voters of that.



http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...ist_hassett&si
d=ay_2TYz2crhs

************************************************** ***********





"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Your understanding of "pork barrel" is as convoluted as the rest of
your
theory. There are many other reasons that you are not able to
understand,
including your very unique "sexual fantasy" concept. For what it is
worth:
Pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term used to
describe
government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a
politician
in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign
contributions or votes. Typically it involves funding for government
programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose
costs
are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and agricultural
subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do not exhaust
the
possibilities. Pork barrel spending is often allocated through
last-minute
additions to appropriations bills.

A classic example was fedral funding for the "Bonior Bike Paths" here in
Mich.......

The federal guvmint (i.e. the taxpayers) had absolutely no business
funding
such a localized project.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
When politicians make policies which have no clear, sane and
well-grounded
reasons, there is a limited set of conclusions you can come to. It
means
their decisions were based on bribery (politely called "pork barrel"
or
"conflicts of interest"), religion, or maladjusted personal
fantasies.
I'll leave you to choose which apply to Bush. I believe #3 and #2 are
the
motivations he's most conscious of (and I'm being polite by linking
the
concept of consciousness to Bush). #1 is most certainly the case as
well,
although that's more of a motivator for his family, who propped him
up
for
election, for reasons you MUST be aware of without explanation.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Nope, did very well in school, and stayed awake in class. I just
can't
imagine anyone receiving sexual gratification from the Iraqi War.
Do
you
get off thinking about it? I sure haven't read anything in the
news
about Bush and his fantasy life, have you? What is the deal with
you
and
Harry and bizarre sexual fantasies


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in sole purpose
is
to
wage war for his own sexual thrills and financial gain.

Doug,
I must have missed the news about Bush's sexual thrills, do you
know
something we don't?

I assume you slept through college, eh?

Yup, the liebrals are all nothing but Lemmings and Borgs. ; )


"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq.
You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons, is
Bush
was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a sexual
fantasy
of his.

But that is all the liebral have left as they head for the cliff like
lemmings......
************************************************** *************
Even Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Kinsley, no fan of the
Republicans,
has noticed. ``It's true that the Republicans are the party of ideas and
the
Democrats are the party of reaction,'' he wrote earlier this month.
``Republicans set the agenda, and Democrats try to talk the country out of
it.''

Democrats continue to rely on a world view that crumbles under scrutiny.
Sifting through Democratic positions on numerous different policies, you
find two core beliefs that differentiate their view of the world from that
of Republicans.

First is the belief that redistributing income is the most important
objective of government. Second is the belief that high tax rates don't
hurt.

These beliefs create two problems for Democrats. The first is that if you
assume they're correct you would find the two beliefs lead logically to
highly unpopular policies. If equality is so wonderful, one should be
willing to increase marginal tax rates in the U.S. on anyone who has an
income higher than the median (about $43,000).

Tax increases are indeed recommended by left-wing intellectuals. New York
Times columnist Paul Krugman, for example, recently called for the U.S. to
raise taxes as a share of gross domestic product from the current 17
percent
to 28 percent -- a 65 percent increase. Good luck to the politician who
tries to convince voters of that.



http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...ist_hassett&si
d=ay_2TYz2crhs

************************************************** ***********





"P. Fritz" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Your understanding of "pork barrel" is as convoluted as the rest of
your
theory. There are many other reasons that you are not able to
understand,
including your very unique "sexual fantasy" concept. For what it is
worth:
Pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term used to
describe
government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a
politician
in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign
contributions or votes. Typically it involves funding for government
programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated but whose
costs
are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and agricultural
subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do not
exhaust
the
possibilities. Pork barrel spending is often allocated through
last-minute
additions to appropriations bills.

A classic example was fedral funding for the "Bonior Bike Paths" here
in
Mich.......

The federal guvmint (i.e. the taxpayers) had absolutely no business
funding
such a localized project.




"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
When politicians make policies which have no clear, sane and
well-grounded
reasons, there is a limited set of conclusions you can come to. It
means
their decisions were based on bribery (politely called "pork barrel"
or
"conflicts of interest"), religion, or maladjusted personal
fantasies.
I'll leave you to choose which apply to Bush. I believe #3 and #2
are
the
motivations he's most conscious of (and I'm being polite by linking
the
concept of consciousness to Bush). #1 is most certainly the case as
well,
although that's more of a motivator for his family, who propped him
up
for
election, for reasons you MUST be aware of without explanation.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Nope, did very well in school, and stayed awake in class. I just
can't
imagine anyone receiving sexual gratification from the Iraqi War.
Do
you
get off thinking about it? I sure haven't read anything in the
news
about Bush and his fantasy life, have you? What is the deal with
you
and
Harry and bizarre sexual fantasies


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in sole purpose
is
to
wage war for his own sexual thrills and financial gain.

Doug,
I must have missed the news about Bush's sexual thrills, do you
know
something we don't?

I assume you slept through college, eh?

And some pork barrel spending is for projects which *might* have some
usefulness to the public, but which are built by cronies of the legislator
who enabled the projects to be funded. Indirectly, the result is bribery.

As far as the sexual issue, this is no different than the ways we sometimes
diagnose mechanical problems. Start with the simplest things (air, fuel,
spark), subtracting reasons one at a time. Eventually, there are no reasons
left but the ugliest, like the expensive ignition module, or a president's
secret thrills gained by watching those shaky video clips from war zones.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Your understanding of "pork barrel" is as convoluted as the rest of your
theory. There are many other reasons that you are not able to understand,
including your very unique "sexual fantasy" concept. For what it is
worth:
Pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) is a derogatory term used to
describe government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a
politician in return for their political support, either in the form of
campaign contributions or votes. Typically it involves funding for
government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated
but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects and
agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples, but they do
not exhaust the possibilities. Pork barrel spending is often allocated
through last-minute additions to appropriations bills.



"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
When politicians make policies which have no clear, sane and
well-grounded reasons, there is a limited set of conclusions you can come
to. It means their decisions were based on bribery (politely called "pork
barrel" or "conflicts of interest"), religion, or maladjusted personal
fantasies. I'll leave you to choose which apply to Bush. I believe #3 and
#2 are the motivations he's most conscious of (and I'm being polite by
linking the concept of consciousness to Bush). #1 is most certainly the
case as well, although that's more of a motivator for his family, who
propped him up for election, for reasons you MUST be aware of without
explanation.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
Nope, did very well in school, and stayed awake in class. I just can't
imagine anyone receiving sexual gratification from the Iraqi War. Do
you get off thinking about it? I sure haven't read anything in the
news about Bush and his fantasy life, have you? What is the deal with
you and Harry and bizarre sexual fantasies


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in sole purpose is
to wage war for his own sexual thrills and financial gain.

Doug,
I must have missed the news about Bush's sexual thrills, do you know
something we don't?

I assume you slept through college, eh?

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq. You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons,
is Bush was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a
sexual fantasy of his.

But.....none of his reasons have panned out, or even held a drop of water.
That leaves only perversion and twisted beliefs.

Doug,
You mind me of the people who look at ancient artifacts they don't
understand and say "This is proof that ancient civilization were visited by
space aliens" You are ignoring many other more viable reasons for invading
Iraq.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq. You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons,
is Bush was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a
sexual fantasy of his.

But.....none of his reasons have panned out, or even held a drop of water.
That leaves only perversion and twisted beliefs.

No I'm not. With the *possible* exception of having a base for troops there,
there is NO reason which has made sense. Not one.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
You mind me of the people who look at ancient artifacts they don't
understand and say "This is proof that ancient civilization were visited
by space aliens" You are ignoring many other more viable reasons for
invading Iraq.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq. You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely reasons,
is Bush was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it meet a
sexual fantasy of his.

But.....none of his reasons have panned out, or even held a drop of
water. That leaves only perversion and twisted beliefs.

and when you look at ancient civilizations, the only explanation which makes
sense is they were visited by aliens.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
No I'm not. With the *possible* exception of having a base for troops
there, there is NO reason which has made sense. Not one.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
You mind me of the people who look at ancient artifacts they don't
understand and say "This is proof that ancient civilization were visited
by space aliens" You are ignoring many other more viable reasons for
invading Iraq.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq. You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely
reasons, is Bush was trying to personally profit from the war and/or it
meet a sexual fantasy of his.

But.....none of his reasons have panned out, or even held a drop of
water. That leaves only perversion and twisted beliefs.

OK. Which of Rove's reasons made sense to you?

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
and when you look at ancient civilizations, the only explanation which
makes sense is they were visited by aliens.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
No I'm not. With the *possible* exception of having a base for troops
there, there is NO reason which has made sense. Not one.

"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Doug,
You mind me of the people who look at ancient artifacts they don't
understand and say "This is proof that ancient civilization were visited
by space aliens" You are ignoring many other more viable reasons for
invading Iraq.


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Juan Valdez" wrote in message
...
Paul,
I agree. My point is there are many reasons Bush went to war against
Iraq. You may not agree with his reasons, but the least likely
reasons, is Bush was trying to personally profit from the war and/or
it meet a sexual fantasy of his.

But.....none of his reasons have panned out, or even held a drop of
water. That leaves only perversion and twisted beliefs.