( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

NOYB wrote:

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:15:19 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

! Better yet, don't attempt to spread fallacious bull****.

You mean like WMDs?

bb



John H

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

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

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

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of
a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority
to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won
by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) .
And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda
might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede
they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number
of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

If a person isn't "Krazy-Kristian dominated", then he's just a
"mean-spirited asswipe", right? Which means he's a Democrat...like you.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:15:19 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

! Better yet, don't attempt to spread fallacious bull****.


But that's all the Bush Administration has left...

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.

Kerry isn't allowed to talk with the press with out adult supervision
because he keeps putting his foot in his mouth.

Kerry's latest foot insertion was when he admitted that he had been offered
a briefing on the current national security situation but, that he didn't
have time to take advantage of the offer. The fact that he admitted this on
camera has got to call into question his priorities.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your
rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties
have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor.

Did you just get back from the dentist?

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your
rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties
have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor.

Did you just get back from the dentist?



Nope. Tomorrow afternoon, actually.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:01:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.


If that were truly the reason, what good would postponing (the
inevitable) accomplish?

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:01:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.


If that were truly the reason, what good would postponing (the
inevitable) accomplish?

Dave


It buys time.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:27:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

NOYB wrote:

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

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is
exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White
House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by
al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might
seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they
have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing

LOL! That's a good one.

and the fear of indictments

ROFLMAO! Stop it, you're killing me.

are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.

Ummm. It seems as if *your* side has embarked on a
foaming-at-the-mouth-OT-posting-frenzy as evidenced by the large number of
OT posts coming from our boating friends on the left.




You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

I state again: the odds of Kerry beating Bush are at least even, and I
think they will get better. There are some non-Kerry anti-Bush
television commercials coming up that will bring even more independents
and undecideds to Kerry's side. What the GOP may be left with after this
election is a base consisting of nothing more than Krazy-Kristian
dominated, mean-spirited asswipes.


Something you may not have considered. With more and "Moore" evidence
of negativity and clearly obvious agenda driven negative stabs being
thrown at Bush, the backlash from those adds by people who finally
have had enough, may end up having the opposite effect that what you
pundits are hoping. I've already heard comments about Moore's movie
(Which BTW has all but disappeared from the pop-culture radar), on
some discussion groups, which have clearly put Moore's biased agenda
into the spotlight, and has actually generated some sympathy for
Bush's position.

So be careful with your "anti-Bush" adds. Liberal mean-spirited
actions may likely cause a different reaction from the one you intend.

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:34:25 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.


According to you, but there still is no proof to back that up. And
your opinion on this is worth exactly......... Nothing!

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:34:25 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.


According to you, but there still is no proof to back that up. And
your opinion on this is worth exactly......... Nothing!

Dave


Dave...it's time for you to emerge from your coma.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall wrote:



Something you may not have considered. With more and "Moore" evidence
of negativity and clearly obvious agenda driven negative stabs being
thrown at Bush, the backlash from those adds by people who finally
have had enough, may end up having the opposite effect that what you
pundits are hoping.

There hasn't been nearly enough negative information about Bush released
yet. Not nearly enough. Fortunately, Bush is doing himself in these days.

You want agenda-driven? Pushing an amendment to criminalize gay
marriage, opposing stem-cell research, opposing abortion...all pandering
to extreme righties.


I've already heard comments about Moore's movie
(Which BTW has all but disappeared from the pop-culture radar),


Here...choke on this:

New Poll:
Nearly Half of All Presidential Voters
Have Seen or Plan to See Fahrenheit 911

Handful of Theaters in the Midwest Refuse to Show Film, Hindering Reach
to Larger Electorate

Nearly half of the American electorate has seen or plans to see
Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore’s film critique of the Bush
Administration, before the November elections, a new survey revealed today.

The film is the most viewed commercial documentary in American film
history and held at a strong number #2 box office position this week
after breaking records during its opening week.

Movie-goers and intended movie-goers represent a broad and diverse slice
of the electorate and spread across the country, including the so-called
battleground states. Fully 23% of voters who intend to see the film
self-identify as Bush voters, while another 10% say they are supporting
Nader or undecided. Forty one percent of potential movie viewers reside
in battleground states, which mirrors the national average of 40% of
voters residing in battleground states.

A survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research captured data from 1000
likely voters fielded between June 28 – July 1, with a margin of error
of +/- 3 points. Six percent of voters surveyed had seen the movie and
38% say they plan to see it.

“Contrary to Republicans’ claims, it’s clear that voters across the
political spectrum want to see what Michael Moore has to say. The film
has stimulated a conversation in households across America about the
Bush Administration’s decisions and actions,” said Eli Pariser,
executive director of MoveOn PAC.

Some theaters in the Midwest—like Fridley Theaters in Iowa and Nebraska
and GKC Theaters in Michigan and Wisconsin—have refused to show Michael
Moore’s film on their screens. MoveOn PAC has asked its membership to
call these theaters’ owners and ask that they reevaluate their decision.

“As the movie expands to more screens, the reach of the movie and its
message will grow,” said Pariser. “The astonishing and revealing footage
in Fahrenheit 911 has the power to change the course of the 2004
election, and that’s why we’re committed to making sure all American
voters have the opportunity to see the film and decide for themselves.”

###



on
some discussion groups, which have clearly put Moore's biased agenda
into the spotlight, and has actually generated some sympathy for
Bush's position.


Awwwwwww. Foch Bush and the horse he can't ride.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:31:47 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 16:01:55 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Jim wrote:

In a major exclusive, Newsweek reports the Bush administration is exploring
legal justifications for postponing the November 2004 election
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/) in the event of a
terrorist attack close to the election. In pushing for the authority to
suspend democracy for the first time in America's history, the White House
is seizing on the right-wing myth that the Spanish election was won by al
Qaeda, instead of being lost by a government that lied to its people
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site...RJ8OVF&b=38377) . And
while the administration has trumpeted the prospect that al Qaeda might seek
to disrupt the U.S. election, "counterterrorism officials concede they have
no intelligence about any specific plots."



Indeed, the fear of losing and the fear of indictments are driving the
neocons into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy.


If that were truly the reason, what good would postponing (the
inevitable) accomplish?

Dave


It buys time.

Time for what? Time is not Bush's friend here. Unless, you are cooking
aup yet another conspiracy theory which involves WMD, OBL, and some
manufactured news that will suddenly improve Bush's image.

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 07:40:58 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 19:34:25 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Bert Robbins wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

You're not reading for content. Why does that not surprise me?

Most of you righties are still spewing the same old "defend Bush no
matter what" vomitus. I suppose all of you believe your rationalizations.

The righties have the truth and good on their side while the lefties have to
lie about everything.


Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.


According to you, but there still is no proof to back that up. And
your opinion on this is worth exactly......... Nothing!

Dave


Dave...it's time for you to emerge from your coma.

No, it's time for you to back up the empty claims you make with
irrefutable FACTS, and not just the opinions of other like-minded
myopic pundits.

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.


According to you, but there still is no proof to back that up. And
your opinion on this is worth exactly......... Nothing!

Dave


Dave,

The statement that *all* we have seen from Bush and his band is thievery,
thuggery, and lies is extreme.

But, if you dare, follow this link.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm

You'll see two Bushes there. In the middle column, you'll find the Bush of PR
Legend-
a man that many thoughtful people would support and undoubetdly the Bush that
you defend with such passion. In the right hand column you'll find the actual
Bush of
closed-door politics, committing acts that put a direct lie to his own words.

If you know of any facts in the right hand column that are misstated, what
would they be?

This illustrates why some of us will be voting for change, rather than a
candidate, in a few months. :-)

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Dave Hall wrote:



Something you may not have considered. With more and "Moore" evidence
of negativity and clearly obvious agenda driven negative stabs being
thrown at Bush, the backlash from those adds by people who finally
have had enough, may end up having the opposite effect that what you
pundits are hoping.

There hasn't been nearly enough negative information about Bush released
yet. Not nearly enough. Fortunately, Bush is doing himself in these days.

You want agenda-driven? Pushing an amendment to criminalize gay
marriage,

Bush didn't start that fight. His actions are in response to a ruling by an
activist liberal court which ruled this year in favor of a couple of homos.



opposing stem-cell research,

I'm not opposed to this.

opposing abortion...all pandering
to extreme righties.

Most people oppose abortion...not just the "extreme righties".



I've already heard comments about Moore's movie
(Which BTW has all but disappeared from the pop-culture radar),


Here...choke on this:

New Poll:
Nearly Half of All Presidential Voters
Have Seen or Plan to See Fahrenheit 911

So?


Handful of Theaters in the Midwest Refuse to Show Film, Hindering Reach
to Larger Electorate

Good. Freedom of speech also applies to the right of a theater owner who
refuses to show something he doesn't want to show in his theater.




Nearly half of the American electorate has seen or plans to see
Fahrenheit 911, Michael Moore’s film critique of the Bush
Administration, before the November elections, a new survey revealed
today.

The film is the most viewed commercial documentary

Documentary? LOL!



in American film
history and held at a strong number #2 box office position this week
after breaking records during its opening week.


Where's it place among the "fictional" movies?


Movie-goers and intended movie-goers represent a broad and diverse slice
of the electorate and spread across the country, including the so-called
battleground states. Fully 23% of voters who intend to see the film
self-identify as Bush voters, while another 10% say they are supporting
Nader or undecided. Forty one percent of potential movie viewers reside
in battleground states, which mirrors the national average of 40% of
voters residing in battleground states.

A survey by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research captured data from 1000
likely voters fielded between June 28 – July 1, with a margin of error
of +/- 3 points. Six percent of voters surveyed had seen the movie and
38% say they plan to see it.

“Contrary to Republicans’ claims, it’s clear that voters across the
political spectrum want to see what Michael Moore has to say. The film
has stimulated a conversation in households across America about the
Bush Administration’s decisions and actions,” said Eli Pariser,
executive director of MoveOn PAC.

Some theaters in the Midwest—like Fridley Theaters in Iowa and Nebraska
and GKC Theaters in Michigan and Wisconsin—have refused to show Michael
Moore’s film on their screens. MoveOn PAC has asked its membership to
call these theaters’ owners and ask that they reevaluate their decision.

“As the movie expands to more screens, the reach of the movie and its
message will grow,” said Pariser. “The astonishing and revealing footage
in Fahrenheit 911 has the power to change the course of the 2004
election, and that’s why we’re committed to making sure all American
voters have the opportunity to see the film and decide for themselves.”

###



on
some discussion groups, which have clearly put Moore's biased agenda
into the spotlight, and has actually generated some sympathy for
Bush's position.


Awwwwwww. Foch Bush and the horse he can't ride.


Leave your sexual fantasies out this, Krause.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 21:27:27 +0000, NOYB wrote:


You want agenda-driven? Pushing an amendment to criminalize gay
marriage,

Bush didn't start that fight. His actions are in response to a ruling by
an activist liberal court which ruled this year in favor of a couple of
homos.

It's a canard. Politician's call for constitutional amendments when they
know there isn't the slightest chance of passage. Remember Ronald
Reagan's call for an amendment to allow prayer in the schools? To
prohibit abortion? Term limits? Or my favorite, a balanced budget
amendment, as his deficits soared? They all went nowhere. IMHO, calling
to amend the Constitution weakens it. The Constitution had provided us a
heritage and stability. It should be held above these transient political
footballs.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On 13 Jul 2004 16:24:52 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Pardon me while I wipe the spittle off my monitor. Al we have gotten
from the Bush-****ters the last three years are lies, thievery and
thuggery.


According to you, but there still is no proof to back that up. And
your opinion on this is worth exactly......... Nothing!

Dave


Dave,

The statement that *all* we have seen from Bush and his band is thievery,
thuggery, and lies is extreme.

But, if you dare, follow this link.

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_...ughtonfilm.htm

You'll see two Bushes there. In the middle column, you'll find the Bush of PR
Legend-
a man that many thoughtful people would support and undoubetdly the Bush that
you defend with such passion. In the right hand column you'll find the actual
Bush of
closed-door politics, committing acts that put a direct lie to his own words.

If you know of any facts in the right hand column that are misstated, what
would they be?

Well, the one thing that stood out immediately to me is that with all
of those supposed budget cuts, just where is the huge spending (other
than on the war) that you guys on the left are claiming is running up
the deficit? Surely SOMEONE is getting increased funding. The tax cuts
didn't make that much of a dent in the budget.

It also proved you wrong on at least one issue. In that it claimed
that : " Additionally, in August, Bush vetoed $6.25M for promised pay
upgrades for Border Patrol agents". If true, this blows a hole in the
often claimed assertion that "Bush has never vetoed any bill".

This illustrates why some of us will be voting for change, rather than a
candidate, in a few months. :-)

Some change. A guy who WILL raise our taxes. That's money out of my
pocket. There's no way I would EVER vote for someone who promoted the
idea of raising taxes.

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Some change. A guy who WILL raise our taxes. That's money out of my
pocket. There's no way I would EVER vote for someone who promoted the
idea of raising taxes.

Dave


??????

And here I thought you were a Bush voter.

You think all the red ink we're piling up
is just going to go away by magic and that no taxes will *ever* be required to
pay for it?

The current admin and congress is spending *your* money at a furious pace.
Don't be so comforted that they haven't come 'round with the due bill,....not
yet.

You can't spend money without income to offset it. Aren't you gops supposed to
be business majors? :-)

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On 14 Jul 2004 16:55:41 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Some change. A guy who WILL raise our taxes. That's money out of my
pocket. There's no way I would EVER vote for someone who promoted the
idea of raising taxes.

Dave


??????

And here I thought you were a Bush voter.

You think all the red ink we're piling up
is just going to go away by magic and that no taxes will *ever* be required to
pay for it?

The current admin and congress is spending *your* money at a furious pace.
Don't be so comforted that they haven't come 'round with the due bill,....not
yet.

You can't spend money without income to offset it. Aren't you gops supposed to
be business majors? :-)


Yes, and that's why we don't run from the word "deficit" like a bunch
of chicken littles. A deficit can be carried almost indefinitely and
paid off gradually, and not require a huge hike in taxes to pay off.
Once the war ends, and if we continue to hold a tight rein on the
purse strings, the deficit will drop.

On the other hand, if Kerry wins and somehow manages to bring his idea
of universal secondary education and healthcare to reality, I'd like
to know just how he plans to pay for that additional enormous drain on
the budget?

I guess he'll just tax those "darn rich people" again. But what
happens when the rich get fed up with the ever increasing "sin taxes"
that have been leveled against them, and simply move out of the
country? Who will be left to take up the slack?

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall wrote:



I guess he'll just tax those "darn rich people" again. But what
happens when the rich get fed up with the ever increasing "sin taxes"
that have been leveled against them, and simply move out of the
country?

Good riddance.


Who will be left to take up the slack?

Dave

Schlepps like you, of course.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:15:48 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:



I guess he'll just tax those "darn rich people" again. But what
happens when the rich get fed up with the ever increasing "sin taxes"
that have been leveled against them, and simply move out of the
country?

Good riddance.


Who will be left to take up the slack?

Dave

Schlepps like you, of course.

And you.

Dave

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:15:48 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:



I guess he'll just tax those "darn rich people" again. But what
happens when the rich get fed up with the ever increasing "sin taxes"
that have been leveled against them, and simply move out of the
country?

Good riddance.


Who will be left to take up the slack?

Dave

Schlepps like you, of course.

And you.

Dave


I pay lots of taxes and am happy to do so.

( OT ) WHen you're gonna lose -- call off the election
 

Dave Hall slobbered the words and they were typed:

Yes, and that's why we don't run from the word "deficit" like a bunch
of chicken littles. A deficit can be carried almost indefinitely and
paid off gradually, and not require a huge hike in taxes to pay off.
Once the war ends, and if we continue to hold a tight rein on the
purse strings, the deficit will drop.

snip
Dave

Yeh,,,,right,,, My great,great,grandchildren are supposed to continue to pay
for mistakes like, invading a third world country, for no real reason, and
the lack of honor to own up to the mistake. Then run the whole thing in a
half-assed manner. Allowing our troops to be in harms way. Telling us, all
the while, how much safer we are now.

The crimminals that attacked us should have been through a trial by now.
Instead, we look for them when it's politically convienent.

The only thing I see is an indefinite increase in the deficit, at an
indefinite rate, with no end in sight.
That's what it means to be conservative. The party of Spend & Spend and
never pay it off.

This is righteous to your way of thinking.
Another one that thinks bankruptcy is debt consolidation.

But that's NOT what you'd have us believe.




I say BULL****!


--
_______m___õ¿~___m_________________________
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute
the Office of President of the United States, and will to the
best of my ability, preserve,protect and defend the Constitution
of the United States." - oath of office -
We need a president that understands, this is a promise.