OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...

Liberals don't need radio show preachers to tell them what or how to
think.

No, they're pretty much content to read the liberally biased news
media,
like the New York Times.....

Dave

At least we are capable of reading and understanding the NY Times, Dave.
Perhaps it bothers you that the Times uses words larger than your
president
can pronounce, or even define. Example: nuclear


More ad-hominem insults Doug? I know you're on the losing side of logic
here, but please try to be a bit more graceful. It isn't helping your
credibility to stoop to Harry's level of "debate".


My comment was not intended as a general one. It was specific (that's the
opposite of general).


I never said that your comments were general. You made a specific
ad-hominem comment, based on nothing more than your own bias.

Dave

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Skipper wrote in message ...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced, and then when GWB got here, we go into,
and REMAIN in massive debt?

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Was the budget really balanced? or was it government speak? Clinton had
the advantage of a robust economy as well as a congress that cut spending.
The robust economy was not Clinton's fault and was already starting to tank
before he left office. Do accounting like is required of every public
business, and you will see a lot of lies in government. Where is the Social
Security "Trust Fund"? Is a bunch of IOU's from the rest of the Federal
Government. They borrowed it interest free and spent it! You do that to
your kids inherited trust fund, and you get to visit the Greybar Hotel. the
16% tax is what made the budget looked balanced. We, as voters and
taxpayers, ought to require the budget to be a real budget, and numbers
based on real life. Baseline budgeting the Congress uses, supposes a 13%
(somewhere in this range) growth in spending each year. That is why you can
have a 4% cut and still spend 9% more money each year on a program. And it
was the Democrats who instigated this travesty when inflation was about 13%
in maybe the 1970's.
Bill

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Skipper wrote in message
...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced, and then when GWB got here, we go into,
and REMAIN in massive debt?

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Was the budget really balanced? or was it government speak? Clinton had
the advantage of a robust economy as well as a congress that cut spending.

I suggest we all go look at the national debt statistics. The increase in the
national debt during the 8 years of Reagan? About 4 trillion.
The increase during the 8 years of Clinton? About 4 trillion.
I am not sure why one budget was more balanced than the other. It was really
only which pocket they were spending the money out of. In Clinton's case he had
the 1993 increase in FICA to give the impression of a surplus. I know there are
lots of inflationary reasons why Reagan's 4 trillion was really more money but
when our kids have to pay it back 4 trillion is 4 trillion.
Bear in mind that the FICA surplus goes upside down in about 10 years and we
are going to start expecting the worthess bonds to mature and pay back the SS
folks who bought them.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.


"Gfretwell" wrote in message
...
he increase in the
national debt during the 8 years of Reagan? About 4 trillion.

2 trillion

The increase during the 8 years of Clinton? About 4 trillion.

2 trillion

sorry for the error

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.

Yup it's funny that Reagan's budget deficit (Democratic congress) gets blamed
on the GOP and Clinton's "surplus" (GOP congress) get's credited to the
Democrats.
The reality is they were both in debt. It was just a bookkeeping trick.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Yup it's funny that Reagan's budget deficit (Democratic congress) gets blamed
on the GOP and Clinton's "surplus" (GOP congress) get's credited to the
Democrats.

Yeah. Even you refer to the amounts as "Reagan's" defict and"Clinton's"
surplus. :-)

No chance of confusing responsibility with Bush's deficit. RW president, RW
congress.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It doesn't matter. Presidents only sign the budget that Congress puts
before them. It's *Congress* that spends the money and creates the
deficits.

And the president's job to stop reckless spending, or at least try, with a
veto.

How many spending bills has GWB vetoed so far? (Hint, the answer is a
number
less than one)

.

The major problem with that is the major pork is added as amendments to very
important spending bills e.g. transportation bill. The Iraq spending bill,
had something like 80(0?) million in non related pork added. If the
spending bill is passed, the money has to be spent. In the old days,
pre-Nixon the Executive branch just did not spend the money. Was allocated,
but not spent. Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
The major problem with that is the major pork is added as amendments to
very
important spending bills e.g. transportation bill. The Iraq spending
bill,
had something like 80(0?) million in non related pork added. If the
spending bill is passed, the money has to be spent. In the old days,
pre-Nixon the Executive branch just did not spend the money. Was
allocated,
but not spent. Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court
and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill


So, in that case the President checks his stones to see that they're still
there (or has
an intern do it for him) and then vetoes the Iraq war bill. Pork and all.
Message to congress: "Send it back up again without all the funny crapola
and
I'll sign it. Or, you guys muster the super majority to override it and
then I
don't want to hear jack squat about the deficit."

And don't forget, its a RW congress at this time. All that pork wouldn't
be in
the bills unless at least some members of the President's own party are in
favor of it. If the RW would simply stick together, it could control
runaway
spending.



Never said that one party had a lock on pork. Is the way of politicos! The
Executive branch needs to go to court to overturn the agreement that allowed
non-germane amendments to be added to a bill. Used to be this way, but part
of the Nixon agreement allowed this rule to be killed.
Bill

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Q" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:15:43 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Congress (Democrat controlled at the time) went to court and
got a ruling that required the President (Exec Branch) to spend all
allocated money. So the deficits are Congress's. But the CEO gets the
blame or credit.
Bill

What happens when the CEO trashes the revenue stream? Say for
instance giving tax breaks to the super-rich? Then the pres is to
blame.

One of the Kennedy clan got drunk (no surprise there) and made a
statement that was later reported in the press. "I don't need Bush's
tax cut -- I've never worked a f**king day in my life." I forgot
which one said it -- try googling if you're interested.

--
Q

What about spending less money? Why always raise the revenue stream? In
1950 the tax burden was about 22%, now it is about 42%. Why is the federal
government spending 100's of millions on art? This is not the Federal
Governments business. Just picked this one example, but there are lots
more. The rest of us that work need the tax cut! Kennedy has no worry
about money to send the kids to a good school, probably gets a free ride at
Harvard, just on the name and because dad donated a bunch of $$$$ to the
school. The rest of us that work for a living, cut back on our outgo when
the income decreases or keep the outgo the same, when the money comes in the
same. Not the governments! The Federal Budget has a built-in inflationary
index. But this index was installed when inflation was 13%. Still the
about 13%. Hell! I would like a 13% raise in salary each year. Says the
budget or salary will double about every 5.5 years (Rule of 72). In 1979
$23,000 was a good salary, allowed a family to buy a decent house, nice car,
maybe not a BMW or MB, but a good new car every 4-5 years. Now this is
poverty level. Damn! Good salary to poverty in 24 years and still making
$23k / year. Why we have so many poor people after the "war on poverty".
We have spent trillions on the "war on poverty" and we lost. Inflation is
caused by the Government spending more than it takes in and has to borrow.
For most of those years, the government's take was helped by inflation. Tax
Bracket Creep, gave the government about 1.1% more money for each 1% of
inflation. Nice scam. As to the tax breaks, Congress has to approve. They
approved a giant tax increase under Clinton. You know the one, where
Clinton said "I guess I raised taxes to much". This after the largest tax
increase in history under Bush, less than 4 years before. Now we have had a
couple of excess tax increases and the government has sucked up all those
dollars and borrowed more. The tax cuts are not the problem, it is the
FRIGGEN SPENDING! We finished the Viet Nam war in the mid 70's, but the
spending has been greater than when we were in a war. How much is that 4
months in Kosovo because of Clinton sending troops cost us? Last I knew, we
were still there.
Bill

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:

Skipper wrote in message
...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist
economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced, and then when GWB got here, we go into,
and REMAIN in massive debt?


Uh, the republican controlled congress, which took over from late 1994?

Who do you think makes the budget policies?

Dave



Also, we had a hyper stock market, and lots of short term dollars frowed
into the coffers. Clinton had NADA to do about a feeding frenzy of day
traders, but he did benifit from the option's taxes flowing into the
coffers. Even Greenspan said the market was irrational.
Bill

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Yup it's funny that Reagan's budget deficit (Democratic congress) gets
blamed
on the GOP and Clinton's "surplus" (GOP congress) get's credited to the
Democrats.

Yeah. Even you refer to the amounts as "Reagan's" defict and"Clinton's"
surplus. :-)

No chance of confusing responsibility with Bush's deficit. RW president,
RW
congress.

Gould, it hasn't even been a year, yet, in which the Republicans controlled
both Congress and the Presidency. Patience, my man!

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Gould, it hasn't even been a year, yet, in which the Republicans controlled
both Congress and the Presidency. Patience, my man!



And in that year, deficit spending has *accelerated*. My patience is worn thin.
:-)

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
m...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Skipper wrote in message
...

It's not just the polls which reflect how people are thinking. History
will show the Dems are responsibe for our ever increasing federal
spending with their never ending push towards a fully socialist
economy.

How do you explain, then, that when Clinton was in office, the
nation's budget was balanced

Because the Republican controlled Congress made good on their promise to
balance the budge in their 1994 Contract with America.


Well, THAT was a convenient thing to do when it suited their goal of making
the president look bad. The current "plan" has an Alice in Wonderland feel
to it, though. UNbalance the budget and make the Republican president look
good? Bad? Something?

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Joe" wrote in message news:dX1Na.15380$n%
So you consider liberal just as derogatory as ******? Maybe we agree on
something.

What a pig.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

In message , Harry Krause
wrote:
basskisser wrote:

"This equal emphasis on creating jobs, balancing budgets and expanding
government's social activism sums up Dean's approach to the office he
has held longer than anyone in this century ... Dean's stunning
political success - five re-election bids, none of them close - has
been built on that balanced approach to government."



The Burlington (Vermont) Free Press 9/13/2001
Howard Dean called the governorship "the greatest job in Vermont" when
he took the state's top post in 1991. In the decade since, Governor
Howard Dean has led Vermont with a firm fiscal discipline, an
unwavering commitment to children's health care and education, and a
keen environmental awareness.

Governor Dean is a physician who previously shared a medical practice
with his wife. (To read more about his wife Judy, click here.) He
received his B.A. from Yale University in 1971 and his medical degree
from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City in 1978. He
served in the Vermont House from 1982 to 1986; was elected lieutenant
governor in 1986, and became governor in 1991 with the death of
then-Governor Richard Snelling.

A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can
only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor
Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most
clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the
governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with
lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any
future economic downturn.

During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created,
the state's minimum wage has climbed twice, incentive programs have
expanded to help downtowns attract new businesses, and tax incentives
were created to attract and keep new companies.

If fiscal management is Governor Dean's trademark, improving the lives
of Vermont's children is his passion. A physician, Governor Dean
strengthened the Dr. Dynasaur program to guarantee health coverage to
virtually every child in Vermont age 18 and under. Vermont has one of
the lowest uninsured rates in the country -- and highest rates of
immunized children. Governor Dean has expanded programs to help
seniors afford prescription drugs, and signed into law one of the
toughest managed care consumer protections in the United States.

It is preservation of Vermont's precious natural resources and
landscapes that the governor considers his legacy. Governor Dean
worked with local communities and the federal government to preserve
more than one million acres of farmland, shorefront, working forests
and wilderness.

Under the Dean Administration, 76 of the state's leaking landfills
were safely closed, and Vermont became a leader in the move to reduce
mercury pollution and stop power plants from polluting the air.
Governor Dean has created bikeways, led the effort to restore commuter
rail service in Vermont, and led a strong, coordinated attack on
sprawl.

Working with lawmakers, prosecutors, judges and law enforcement,
Governor Dean has cracked down on violent crime in Vermont and ensured
that violent felons spend time behind bars. He has fought to protect
family farms, increased the number of women and minorities in
judgeships and other prominent positions, cracked down on domestic
violence, and put Vermont in the forefront for child support
collections



Dean is a very interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run look
competitive.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

NOYB wrote:

In message , Harry Krause
wrote:
basskisser wrote:

"This equal emphasis on creating jobs, balancing budgets and expanding
government's social activism sums up Dean's approach to the office he
has held longer than anyone in this century ... Dean's stunning
political success - five re-election bids, none of them close - has
been built on that balanced approach to government."



The Burlington (Vermont) Free Press 9/13/2001
Howard Dean called the governorship "the greatest job in Vermont" when
he took the state's top post in 1991. In the decade since, Governor
Howard Dean has led Vermont with a firm fiscal discipline, an
unwavering commitment to children's health care and education, and a
keen environmental awareness.

Governor Dean is a physician who previously shared a medical practice
with his wife. (To read more about his wife Judy, click here.) He
received his B.A. from Yale University in 1971 and his medical degree
from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City in 1978. He
served in the Vermont House from 1982 to 1986; was elected lieutenant
governor in 1986, and became governor in 1991 with the death of
then-Governor Richard Snelling.

A common-sense moderate who firmly believes that social justice can
only be accomplished through strong financial management, Governor
Dean has cut the income tax twice, removed the sales tax on most
clothing, and reduced the state's long-term debt. Not only did the
governor pay off an inherited $70 million deficit, he worked with
lawmakers to build "rainy day" reserves to help the state through any
future economic downturn.

During the Dean tenure, more than 41,000 new jobs have been created,
the state's minimum wage has climbed twice, incentive programs have
expanded to help downtowns attract new businesses, and tax incentives
were created to attract and keep new companies.

If fiscal management is Governor Dean's trademark, improving the lives
of Vermont's children is his passion. A physician, Governor Dean
strengthened the Dr. Dynasaur program to guarantee health coverage to
virtually every child in Vermont age 18 and under. Vermont has one of
the lowest uninsured rates in the country -- and highest rates of
immunized children. Governor Dean has expanded programs to help
seniors afford prescription drugs, and signed into law one of the
toughest managed care consumer protections in the United States.

It is preservation of Vermont's precious natural resources and
landscapes that the governor considers his legacy. Governor Dean
worked with local communities and the federal government to preserve
more than one million acres of farmland, shorefront, working forests
and wilderness.

Under the Dean Administration, 76 of the state's leaking landfills
were safely closed, and Vermont became a leader in the move to reduce
mercury pollution and stop power plants from polluting the air.
Governor Dean has created bikeways, led the effort to restore commuter
rail service in Vermont, and led a strong, coordinated attack on
sprawl.

Working with lawmakers, prosecutors, judges and law enforcement,
Governor Dean has cracked down on violent crime in Vermont and ensured
that violent felons spend time behind bars. He has fought to protect
family farms, increased the number of women and minorities in
judgeships and other prominent positions, cracked down on domestic
violence, and put Vermont in the forefront for child support
collections



Dean is a very interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run look
competitive.

I believe the great unwashed American public is beginning to wake up and
realize how totally incompetent George W. Bush is. He is a complete
failure, and a dangerous one to boot. He lies about important matters.
He's busted the budget and is squandering the future of generations of
Americans yet to come. He's divisive. He's destroyed alliances with
other countries.

But he's your boy. You can have him.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"NOYB" wrote in message news:F2kbb.18137 Dean is a very
interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run look
competitive.


All this comparing Dead to McGovern (or Dukakis) is non-sense. The political
landscape is different, the media landscape is different, and the man is
much
Different.

Dean *can* be nominated and *can* win.

Personally, I believe that if he's nominated he will beat Bush. I also
believe
that if Kerry, or Clark are nominated they'll beat him too.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:F2kbb.18137 Dean is a very
interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run look
competitive.


All this comparing Dead to McGovern (or Dukakis) is non-sense. The
political
landscape is different, the media landscape is different, and the man is
much
Different.

Dean *can* be nominated and *can* win.

Personally, I believe that if he's nominated he will beat Bush. I also
believe
that if Kerry, or Clark are nominated they'll beat him too.


And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

NOYB wrote:

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:F2kbb.18137 Dean is a very
interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run look
competitive.


All this comparing Dead to McGovern (or Dukakis) is non-sense. The
political
landscape is different, the media landscape is different, and the man is
much
Different.

Dean *can* be nominated and *can* win.

Personally, I believe that if he's nominated he will beat Bush. I also
believe
that if Kerry, or Clark are nominated they'll beat him too.


And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny.



On rare occasions, and those occasions are becoming more rare, I point
out a spelling error as indicative of the idiocy of the poster.

Santa Clause, eh?

Ignorant ass.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Gary Warner" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message news:F2kbb.18137 Dean is a
very
interesting fellow, but I dunno if the party apparatus
will go for him.


I sure hope the dem party nominates him. He'll make Dukakis's run
look
competitive.


All this comparing Dead to McGovern (or Dukakis) is non-sense. The
political
landscape is different, the media landscape is different, and the man
is
much
Different.

Dean *can* be nominated and *can* win.

Personally, I believe that if he's nominated he will beat Bush. I also
believe
that if Kerry, or Clark are nominated they'll beat him too.


And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter
Bunny.



On rare occasions, and those occasions are becoming more rare, I point
out a spelling error as indicative of the idiocy of the poster.

Santa Clause, eh?

Ignorant ass.


Boy, you got me there Harry. That extra "e" sure is "indicative of the
idiocy of the poster".

BTW--You missed where I forgot the "s" at the end of "believes"...

Those things happen when you're is typing left-handed, with your brain
half-engaged in needling you, and half-engaged in feeding a bottle to my 4
1/2 month old son.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

snip
And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter
Bunny.



On rare occasions, and those occasions are becoming more rare, I point
out a spelling error as indicative of the idiocy of the poster.

Santa Clause, eh?

Ignorant ass.


Boy, you got me there Harry. That extra "e" sure is "indicative of the
idiocy of the poster".

BTW--You missed where I forgot the "s" at the end of "believes"...

Those things happen when you're is typing left-handed, with your brain
half-engaged in needling you, and half-engaged in feeding a bottle to my 4
1/2 month old son.


It seems that Harry has found a new sparring partner to fill in for Skippy.

Harry and Skippy show - Harry and Tooth Fairy show.

Mark Browne
PS - Proof that you don't have to have a Bayliner to be sort of Right!

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et...
snip
And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter
Bunny.



On rare occasions, and those occasions are becoming more rare, I point
out a spelling error as indicative of the idiocy of the poster.

Santa Clause, eh?

Ignorant ass.


Boy, you got me there Harry. That extra "e" sure is "indicative of the
idiocy of the poster".

BTW--You missed where I forgot the "s" at the end of "believes"...

Those things happen when you're is typing left-handed, with your brain
half-engaged in needling you, and half-engaged in feeding a bottle to my
4
1/2 month old son.


It seems that Harry has found a new sparring partner to fill in for
Skippy.

Harry and Skippy show - Harry and Tooth Fairy show.

Mark Browne
PS - Proof that you don't have to have a Bayliner to be sort of Right!

Are you taking Chuck's place? You've got your head burried in Harry's ass so
far you can't see reality anymore.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Several problems with that Mark:

I use my boat more in a month than Skippy used his in
a lifetime.

I'm sure Harry and I'll will never argue about boats since we seem to share
a very similar taste in 'em.

I support Israel in the Arab/Israeli conflict.

My knees are better than Skipper's...so that quashes one of Harry's main
points of attack.














"Mark Browne" wrote in message
et...
snip
And Gary also believe in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, the Easter
Bunny.



On rare occasions, and those occasions are becoming more rare, I point
out a spelling error as indicative of the idiocy of the poster.

Santa Clause, eh?

Ignorant ass.


Boy, you got me there Harry. That extra "e" sure is "indicative of the
idiocy of the poster".

BTW--You missed where I forgot the "s" at the end of "believes"...

Those things happen when you're is typing left-handed, with your brain
half-engaged in needling you, and half-engaged in feeding a bottle to my
4
1/2 month old son.


It seems that Harry has found a new sparring partner to fill in for
Skippy.

Harry and Skippy show - Harry and Tooth Fairy show.

Mark Browne
PS - Proof that you don't have to have a Bayliner to be sort of Right!

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

I believe the great unwashed American public is beginning to wake up and
realize how totally incompetent George W. Bush is. He is a complete
failure, and a dangerous one to boot. He lies about important matters.
He's busted the budget and is squandering the future of generations of
Americans yet to come. He's divisive. He's destroyed alliances with
other countries.

But he's your boy. You can have him.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.


Harry, you make the same mistake that most moderates and progressives make: you
assume that the common man is an independent thinking intellectual. Not so.

We live in a society where the majority of people do what the TV commercials
tell them to do. They eat "Twinkies" and "Ding Dongs" for gosh sakes! The
average American is overweight, under exercised,
deeply in debt for discretionary consumption, and couldn't find more than
ten countires on an unlabeled map of the world....(US, Canada, and Mexico
notwithstanding). We judge what must be right and wrong based on the number of
people around us that hold the same opinion! Incredible, but true.

Don't count on public awareness to undo the Bush administration. A significant
number of people in this country actually believe it's "unpatriotic" to
question anything the administration does! They probably think that the Crisco
and sugar in the middle of a Twinkie really is a "cream" filling. :-)

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

Gould 0738 wrote:

I believe the great unwashed American public is beginning to wake up and
realize how totally incompetent George W. Bush is. He is a complete
failure, and a dangerous one to boot. He lies about important matters.
He's busted the budget and is squandering the future of generations of
Americans yet to come. He's divisive. He's destroyed alliances with
other countries.

But he's your boy. You can have him.



--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.


Harry, you make the same mistake that most moderates and progressives make: you
assume that the common man is an independent thinking intellectual. Not so.

We live in a society where the majority of people do what the TV commercials
tell them to do. They eat "Twinkies" and "Ding Dongs" for gosh sakes! The
average American is overweight, under exercised,
deeply in debt for discretionary consumption, and couldn't find more than
ten countires on an unlabeled map of the world....(US, Canada, and Mexico
notwithstanding). We judge what must be right and wrong based on the number of
people around us that hold the same opinion! Incredible, but true.

Don't count on public awareness to undo the Bush administration. A significant
number of people in this country actually believe it's "unpatriotic" to
question anything the administration does! They probably think that the Crisco
and sugar in the middle of a Twinkie really is a "cream" filling. :-)


Hmm. Never thought of it that way. Bush--the twinkie president.

--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

OT Howard Dean in 2004
 

snip
It seems that Harry has found a new sparring partner to fill in for
Skippy.

Harry and Skippy show - Harry and Tooth Fairy show.

Mark Browne
PS - Proof that you don't have to have a Bayliner to be sort of Right!

Are you taking Chuck's place? You've got your head burried in Harry's ass
so
far you can't see reality anymore.

Certainly you jest?

Unlike the Rightist ditto heads we don't need someone to do our thinking for
us. I don't think that Chuck gets position memos from Harry, I know I don't.
As hard as it may be for you to grasp, if I see him pumping out whoppers, I
will go after him with the same enthusiasm. If you google a bit, you will
see that I have taken a few swipes at him.

I have no aspirations to take Chucks place. I *will* gladly fly with him in
the "Anti Big Whoppers" truth campaign. Oddly, we both seem find the biggest
whoppers in the writings of just a few of the newsgroup posters.

Mark Browne