| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
| Date: |
26 Jan 2005 01:17:35 PM |
| Object: |
Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
Worst fucking president? The numbers don't lie.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050125/photos_pl/deficit_2005_graphic
And these are the White House's own numbers.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
26 Jan 2005 01:44:26 PM |
|
|
on 26 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Rev. Karl E. Taylor dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Worst fucking president? The numbers don't lie.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050125/pho
tos_pl/deficit_2005_graphic
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
26 Jan 2005 05:19:23 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "chibiabos" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 08:25:04 AM |
|
|
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 05:44:08 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 06:25:04 -0800, chibiabos <chib@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
That too.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 09:16:55 AM |
|
|
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com>
wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw the
conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this country,
as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an election,
(what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land slide"), and damn
near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 10:05:42 AM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw
the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to
this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con religious
half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an election,
(what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land slide"), and
damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:09:14 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw
the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to
this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con religious
half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an election,
(what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land slide"), and
damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem to
think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments get
their money in the first place), is great idea. On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge amounts
of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion, that we
don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out of? (and
before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the reports, where 75%
of the money is already earmarked for the pentagon)
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:37:17 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened
to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con religious
half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem to
think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments get
their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if they
don't absolutely have to.
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion, that
we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out of?
(and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the reports,
where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
Sigh. The same old selective memory, redux. Why can't you idiot libruls
ever manage to remember what happened only four years ago? You know,
repeating your lies day after day won't make them true. CIA said it was
a "Slam Dunk", remember? Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD. Or shall I produce the quotes from such
luminaries as John Kerry or ol' Bubba?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 02:21:02 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened
to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con religious
half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and Shrub-a-dub-dub,
more then make up for it.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem to
think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments get
their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if they
don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to the
crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion, that
we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out of?
(and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the reports,
where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
Oh, but what this ***** I read, now, we are flying missions into Iran, to
try and get them to activate their air defense systems?
My my my. I just wonder who we will be invading next?
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
Sigh. The same old selective memory, redux. Why can't you idiot libruls
ever manage to remember what happened only four years ago? You know,
repeating your lies day after day won't make them true. CIA said it was
a "Slam Dunk", remember? Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD. Or shall I produce the quotes from such
luminaries as John Kerry or ol' Bubba?
Yeah, just like you inability to recognize a lie when it bites you in
the *****. Your buddy, goes and invades a country, on a lie, lies to the
public, lies to the congress, and lies to the world.
And now, the little ***** is getting ready to do it again. This time,
over a little piece of dirt, named Iran. I wonder what lie he'll use
this time?
Oh, and not only am I not a democrat, but I'm also not a liberal.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:24:26 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:18vnc2-bou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever
happened to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con
religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
You may READ them but you're pretty damn selective about presenting
them.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and
Shrub-a-dub-dub, more then make up for it.
Oh yawn. Can't handle honest disagreement, can you? It's just *got* to
be fanaticism, doesn't it?
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem to
think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments get
their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if
they don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to the
crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Not. The economy is doing just fine, if you don't listen to the Knee
Jerk Times.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
That seems to work out to around 30% of eligible voters on either side,
give or take.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion, that
we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out of?
(and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the reports,
where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
No, we're not supposed to be pulling out of there.
Oh, but what this ***** I read, now, we are flying missions into Iran,
to try and get them to activate their air defense systems?
By whom? Seymour Hersh? You'll believe anything, will you?
My my my. I just wonder who we will be invading next?
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
Sigh. The same old selective memory, redux. Why can't you idiot
libruls ever manage to remember what happened only four years ago?
You know, repeating your lies day after day won't make them true. CIA
said it was a "Slam Dunk", remember? Practically every other pol in
Washington agreed that Saddam had WMD. Or shall I produce the quotes
from such luminaries as John Kerry or ol' Bubba?
Yeah, just like you inability to recognize a lie when it bites you in
the *****.
Oh, no, I can tell the difference between a lie and bad intelligence
information. Too bad you can't.
Your buddy, goes and invades a country, on a lie, lies to
the public, lies to the congress, and lies to the world.
Yawn. Stick to those leftie lies, Rev. I'm sure they're very comforting.
And now, the little ***** is getting ready to do it again. This time,
over a little piece of dirt, named Iran. I wonder what lie he'll use
this time?
Oh, and not only am I not a democrat, but I'm also not a liberal.
Then join the club. I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a neocon.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:54:43 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:18vnc2-bou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever
happened to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con
religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
You may READ them but you're pretty damn selective about presenting
them.
Nahhh, I just see what is factual, and what is hype.
And the Shrub is hype.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and
Shrub-a-dub-dub, more then make up for it.
Oh yawn. Can't handle honest disagreement, can you? It's just *got* to
be fanaticism, doesn't it?
Honest, yes. Disagreement, yes.
Fanatical devotion to a failure in office, nope.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem to
think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments get
their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if
they don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to the
crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Not. The economy is doing just fine, if you don't listen to the Knee
Jerk Times.
Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that Fred. And maybe someday,
in about 12 years, it might just come true.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
That seems to work out to around 30% of eligible voters on either side,
give or take.
Yeah, still about half. No matter how you cut it.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion, that
we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out of?
(and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the reports,
where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
No, we're not supposed to be pulling out of there.
Oh, so you admit, shorty lied during his bid for reelection then.
Damn, facts getting in the way of a good story, yet again.
Oh, but what this ***** I read, now, we are flying missions into Iran,
to try and get them to activate their air defense systems?
By whom? Seymour Hersh? You'll believe anything, will you?
Nahhh, only what is accepted as fact.
And the White House facts speak volumes. Shrub, is, a, failure.
And a failure that won't even admit that he's made mistakes.
My my my. I just wonder who we will be invading next?
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
Sigh. The same old selective memory, redux. Why can't you idiot
libruls ever manage to remember what happened only four years ago?
You know, repeating your lies day after day won't make them true. CIA
said it was a "Slam Dunk", remember? Practically every other pol in
Washington agreed that Saddam had WMD. Or shall I produce the quotes
from such luminaries as John Kerry or ol' Bubba?
Yeah, just like you inability to recognize a lie when it bites you in
the *****.
Oh, no, I can tell the difference between a lie and bad intelligence
information. Too bad you can't.
Already have. Your buddy is a screw up. And he's going to screw up
even more during the next 4 years.
Your buddy, goes and invades a country, on a lie, lies to
the public, lies to the congress, and lies to the world.
Yawn. Stick to those leftie lies, Rev. I'm sure they're very comforting.
Facts boy, facts. To bad you don't want to accept them. It would burst
that nice safe little bubble you live in.
And now, the little ***** is getting ready to do it again. This time,
over a little piece of dirt, named Iran. I wonder what lie he'll use
this time?
Oh, and not only am I not a democrat, but I'm also not a liberal.
Then join the club. I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a neocon.
But can you admit that Jr. has made mistakes, and is wrong in some areas?
Or does your devotion to the lost little puppy blind you to the facts?
Not that all of the blame is Shrub's of course. It's his
administration, his people, they all screwed up in a big way on a number
of issues.
But he is ultimately responsible. As he is in charge.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 04:28:03 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:mn4oc2-e7v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:18vnc2-bou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever
happened to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con
religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
You may READ them but you're pretty damn selective about presenting
them.
Nahhh, I just see what is factual, and what is hype.
And the Shrub is hype.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and
Shrub-a-dub-dub, more then make up for it.
Oh yawn. Can't handle honest disagreement, can you? It's just *got*
to be fanaticism, doesn't it?
Honest, yes. Disagreement, yes.
Fanatical devotion to a failure in office, nope.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem
to think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments
get their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if
they don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to
the crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Not. The economy is doing just fine, if you don't listen to the Knee
Jerk Times.
Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that Fred. And maybe someday,
in about 12 years, it might just come true.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
That seems to work out to around 30% of eligible voters on either
side, give or take.
Yeah, still about half. No matter how you cut it.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion,
that we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out
of? (and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the
reports, where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the
pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
No, we're not supposed to be pulling out of there.
Oh, so you admit, shorty lied during his bid for reelection then.
When did he claim that we're going to pull out? Cite, please?
Damn, facts getting in the way of a good story, yet again.
Yawn. You'll hurt your arm, patting yourself on the back like that.
Oh, but what this ***** I read, now, we are flying missions into Iran,
to try and get them to activate their air defense systems?
By whom? Seymour Hersh? You'll believe anything, will you?
Nahhh, only what is accepted as fact.
Ah, not what is *known* to be fact?
And the White House facts speak volumes. Shrub, is, a, failure.
And a failure that won't even admit that he's made mistakes.
Why should he feed the media such an "admission"?
My my my. I just wonder who we will be invading next?
And just where are those WMD's Fred?
Or are you ready to finally admit, that the little fucker lied?
Sigh. The same old selective memory, redux. Why can't you idiot
libruls ever manage to remember what happened only four years ago?
You know, repeating your lies day after day won't make them true.
CIA said it was a "Slam Dunk", remember? Practically every other pol
in Washington agreed that Saddam had WMD. Or shall I produce the
quotes from such luminaries as John Kerry or ol' Bubba?
Yeah, just like you inability to recognize a lie when it bites you in
the *****.
Oh, no, I can tell the difference between a lie and bad intelligence
information. Too bad you can't.
Already have. Your buddy is a screw up. And he's going to screw up
even more during the next 4 years.
So does everybody. So what?
Your buddy, goes and invades a country, on a lie, lies to
the public, lies to the congress, and lies to the world.
Yawn. Stick to those leftie lies, Rev. I'm sure they're very
comforting.
Facts boy, facts. To bad you don't want to accept them. It would
burst that nice safe little bubble you live in.
Oh, are these some more of those "accepted truths?"
And now, the little ***** is getting ready to do it again. This time,
over a little piece of dirt, named Iran. I wonder what lie he'll use
this time?
Oh, and not only am I not a democrat, but I'm also not a liberal.
Then join the club. I'm not a Republican, and I'm not a neocon.
But can you admit that Jr. has made mistakes, and is wrong in some
areas?
Sure. Nothing in war or politics goes exactly the way you plan it.
Or does your devotion to the lost little puppy blind you to the facts?
Not as much as your hatred for him blinds you.
Not that all of the blame is Shrub's of course. It's his
administration, his people, they all screwed up in a big way on a
number of issues.
But he is ultimately responsible. As he is in charge.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 05:03:15 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:mn4oc2-e7v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:18vnc2-bou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever
happened to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con
religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
You may READ them but you're pretty damn selective about presenting
them.
Nahhh, I just see what is factual, and what is hype.
And the Shrub is hype.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and
Shrub-a-dub-dub, more then make up for it.
Oh yawn. Can't handle honest disagreement, can you? It's just *got*
to be fanaticism, doesn't it?
Honest, yes. Disagreement, yes.
Fanatical devotion to a failure in office, nope.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem
to think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments
get their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if
they don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to
the crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Not. The economy is doing just fine, if you don't listen to the Knee
Jerk Times.
Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that Fred. And maybe someday,
in about 12 years, it might just come true.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
That seems to work out to around 30% of eligible voters on either
side, give or take.
Yeah, still about half. No matter how you cut it.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion,
that we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out
of? (and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the
reports, where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the
pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
No, we're not supposed to be pulling out of there.
Oh, so you admit, shorty lied during his bid for reelection then.
When did he claim that we're going to pull out? Cite, please?
Go into eMule, do a video search on "2004 Debates" and down load them.
Then watch them again, and listen to ***** for brains talk about how,
Kerry's strategy, is the Bush Plan.
Exit strategy that is.
And yet, not only is the little ***** ramping up to keep us in Iraq,
even longer, but now, he sets his sights on Iran.
When will you understand, the fucker is a danger to the entire world?
Not just the US, but the whole stinking world.
"Bring it on" is not foreign policy. And this little ***** head, has
done his damned best to screw us and the world over.
And if you are to blind to see that, oh well. When it bites you in the
*****, maybe then you'll understand.
But by that time, it'll be to late.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
28 Jan 2005 07:32:18 AM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in news:6o8oc2-qiv.ln1
@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:mn4oc2-e7v.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:18vnc2-bou.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:sgnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:oddnc2-obr.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
chibiabos wrote:
In article <pa9gv0pgfj468paulr09fett93j68ps8h4@4ax.com>, duke
<duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
And these are the White House's own numbers.
Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to
draw the conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever
happened to this country, as held by all the drooling neo-con
religious half-wits that voted him in.
The American voter disagrees with you.
Becasuse Clinton got a ***** and 9/11 happened, right?
-chib
And those numbers just always stick in their throats.
Economy in the toilet, Shurb-a-dub-dub just squeaks by on an
election, (what happen to Robertsons "he'll win in a walk, land
slide"), and damn near 1/2 the country hates his guts.
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Really? Could have fooled me.
Wouldn't have to. You've already *been* fooled.
Nope, see things very clearly.
Amazing what happens when you open your eyes. And actually READ both
sides of an issue.
You may READ them but you're pretty damn selective about presenting
them.
Nahhh, I just see what is factual, and what is hype.
And the Shrub is hype.
Damn. You may be great when it comes to no faith in gods, but your
fanatical fundamental faith in the republican party and
Shrub-a-dub-dub, more then make up for it.
Oh yawn. Can't handle honest disagreement, can you? It's just *got*
to be fanaticism, doesn't it?
Honest, yes. Disagreement, yes.
Fanatical devotion to a failure in office, nope.
Then again, that just over 51% that voted for the dweeb also seem
to think that cutting taxes to the bone, (which is how governments
get their money in the first place), is great idea.
It is a great idea. Congress will *never* agree to cut spending if
they don't absolutely have to.
Until they cut their own throats, and push the economy right in to
the crapper.
OH WAIT! They already did that.
Not. The economy is doing just fine, if you don't listen to the Knee
Jerk Times.
Yeah, you just keep on telling yourself that Fred. And maybe someday,
in about 12 years, it might just come true.
Oh well. We can always "print more".
On top of that,
treating our veterans like crap is great, while dolling out huge
amounts of money to their "rich" friends.
Your right Fred, just OVER half the country are morons.
Hmm, check your math again.
Turnout on Nov 2 was around 60% of *eligible* voters.
Yeah, and the margin of victory was less then 1%. What's your point?
That seems to work out to around 30% of eligible voters on either
side, give or take.
Yeah, still about half. No matter how you cut it.
BTW Fred, just why does ***** for brains need another 80 billion,
that we don't have, to fund a war we are supposed to be pulling out
of? (and before you try the dead "rebuild Iraq" crap, read the
reports, where 75% of the money is already earmarked for the
pentagon)
Ongoing costs, duh. Current estimates are at least two more years of
supporting Iraq's internal security forces before they're completely
ready to defend their country.
We are supposed to be pulling out of there, not building up for it.
No, we're not supposed to be pulling out of there.
Oh, so you admit, shorty lied during his bid for reelection then.
When did he claim that we're going to pull out? Cite, please?
Go into eMule, do a video search on "2004 Debates" and down load them.
Then watch them again, and listen to ***** for brains talk about how,
Kerry's strategy, is the Bush Plan.
Exit strategy that is.
So you think Bush was saying that he'll do whatever you think Kerry's plans
were (as if Kerry or anybody else actually knows what his plans were)?
Rev, you're even more stupid than I thought you were.
And yet, not only is the little ***** ramping up to keep us in Iraq,
even longer, but now, he sets his sights on Iran.
I'll remind you of all the libruls who asked why Bush didn't pick on "big,
strong" Iran instead of "poor, weak" Iraq?
When will you understand, the fucker is a danger to the entire world?
Not just the US, but the whole stinking world.
I understand perfectly well that President Bush is not a danger to the
entire world. He's a danger to the tyrants and terrorists with whom you
sympathize so readily.
"Bring it on" is not foreign policy. And this little ***** head, has
done his damned best to screw us and the world over.
You're right. A military morale speech is not foreign policy. Except maybe
to some ***** media wonk who quotes out of context as a matter of
routine.
And if you are to blind to see that, oh well. When it bites you in the
*****, maybe then you'll understand.
But by that time, it'll be to late.
Yawn. More defeatism. Ho hum.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:43:12 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 01:17:14 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%. And that includes the reports from the inspectors in
Iraq, that Saddam was obstructing their work. It's only in hindsight
that anybody claims that there weren't any WMD's, and that requires them
to ignore certain key bits of evidence, like the warehouses full of
precursor chemicals and the evidence of major shipments out of the
country just before we invaded. The full reports show that Saddam
retained full capability to manufacture war gas and biologicals and the
search team only failed to find actual stockpiles of finished munitions.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 01:55:26 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%.
Hmmm. Since practically means "almost", that would be less than 50%, which
puts those who held that belief in the minority. According to you anyway.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:12:23 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB7982D1CD7vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%.
Hmmm. Since practically means "almost", that would be less than 50%,
which puts those who held that belief in the minority. According to
you anyway.
No, that would be a misreading. Maybe you mistook "every other pol" for
meaning "odd numbers only". What it meant was "practically no other pols
disagreed that Saddam had WMD".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:23:00 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB7982D1CD7vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%.
Hmmm. Since practically means "almost", that would be less than 50%,
which puts those who held that belief in the minority. According to
you anyway.
No, that would be a misreading. Maybe you mistook "every other pol" for
meaning "odd numbers only". What it meant was "practically no other pols
disagreed that Saddam had WMD".
I always thought "every other" meant alternating, thus 50%.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/every+other(a)
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 03:40:22 PM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB885B85415vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB7982D1CD7vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%.
Hmmm. Since practically means "almost", that would be less than
50%, which puts those who held that belief in the minority.
According to you anyway.
No, that would be a misreading. Maybe you mistook "every other pol"
for meaning "odd numbers only". What it meant was "practically no
other pols disagreed that Saddam had WMD".
I always thought "every other" meant alternating, thus 50%.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/every+other(a)
That would make sense if politicians were all lined up in a row (against
a wall, perhaps).
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 04:12:58 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB885B85415vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB7982D1CD7vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB6D43D32E1vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled,
then shouted:
Practically every other pol in Washington
agreed that Saddam had WMD.
50%? On which side were the people who actually conducted the
investigation in Iraq?
More than 50%.
Hmmm. Since practically means "almost", that would be less than
50%, which puts those who held that belief in the minority.
According to you anyway.
No, that would be a misreading. Maybe you mistook "every other pol"
for meaning "odd numbers only". What it meant was "practically no
other pols disagreed that Saddam had WMD".
I always thought "every other" meant alternating, thus 50%.
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/every+other(a)
That would make sense if politicians were all lined up in a row (against
a wall, perhaps).
Firing squad. Good idea.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 11:22:25 AM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday. Turns
out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As I suspect
half the country is...
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 11:43:03 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:22:25 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted, whirled,
then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday. Turns
out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As I suspect
half the country is...
That surprises me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:16:43 PM |
|
|
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Christopher A. Lee dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:22:25 -0600, Vic Sagerquist
<address@withheld.com> wrote:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As I
suspect half the country is...
That surprises me.
Do you think perhpas they are aware, and just don't care? That makes sense
too. What, we're outta monee for whoopin' terrorist butt, Billy Ray?
Shee-it, let's just print some more.
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
______________
Why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are the kind of
people you wouldn't want to ***** in the first place?
--George Carlin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 11:54:01 AM |
|
|
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As I
suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually had a
budget surplus.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:12:35 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As I
suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually had a
budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report, supports
that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:27:11 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As
I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually had
a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report, supports
that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
01 Feb 2005 04:57:03 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
< snip >
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Like BushCo is going to do with Iraq?
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:37:46 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" < > wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <address@withheld.com> wrote in
news:Xns95EB5F91644F8vicman@127.0.0.1:
on 27 Jan 2005 in alt.atheism, Fred Stone dropped trou, farted,
whirled, then shouted:
Yeah, tough to argue with numbers.
Sorry, Rev, but damn near 1/2 the country aren't Moore-ons.
Oooo, there's a new one!
I got into an argument with my boss about those figures yesterday.
Turns out he was completely unaware of the state of the deficit. As
I suspect half the country is...
Shucks, there are more than a few who think that Clinton actually had
a budget surplus.
And ain't it a damn shame that the White House's own report, supports
that claim.
Fred, you don't look good with your foot in your mouth.
Too bad, sucker, you fell for the same old accounting fraud that the
Feds have used for decades. Just don't count Social Security and
Medicare as part of the "budget".
Fred, go back and read the link again.
IT's the report from the White House. As it were, right from hat heads
own mouth.
You are attempting to argue, against a report, by your bestest buddy,
and all of his little friends.
And their report, does not show a favorable light, on Mr. Cattle Crap.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. |
27 Jan 2005 12:49:47 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:b6pnc2-12u.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" <ktayloraz@getnet.net> wrote in
news:5nnnc2-rqt.ln1@dhcpdns2.ddsoho.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Vic Sagerquist <addres | | | | | | | | | | | |
