Fred Stone wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1143137620.651572.197520@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1143088582.274299.71090@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Fred Stone wrote:

"Dave Fritzinger" <dfritzin@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1143070491.388833.133860@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com:

duke wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:30:56 -0500, "Bill"
<wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote:

Because he does what is right rather than what his poll
numbers call for.

Dream on!

NO, that's fact. 'rat clinton did everything by polls.

If so, perhaps Bush should follow suit. Clinton left the
country in far better shape that Bush is likely to do.

Not by any objective measure.

Trade deficit was better, budget deficit was lower, long term
future of economy was arguably better, our relations with our
allies were better...

"better" is a subjective judgement. The future was the future. Our
relations with our *enemies* was immeasurably worse. Unemployment
was higher, the stock market was worse, the economy was worse,
economic growth was worse, *mine safety enforcement* was worse,

Actually, I believe you are wrong on all these measures. Wage
growth was better, the economy was better, in that we didn't owe so
much to so many, average economic growth was better during the
Clinton Administration, etc.

Clinton's economic growth pooped when the bubble popped. It was
hollow growth.

Umm, no it wasn't More jobs created than during the Bush
administration, smaller deficits, etc.

There is also this:

In over 5 years since Bush took office, the S&P 500 *dropped* 37
points, or nearly 3%, not counting inflation. Speaking of hollow
recoveries...

<...>

Too bad you're wrong about that.

Gee, the experts (as opposed to the right-wing bloggers) agree
with me. 9/11 commission, etc.

No, they do not. the 9/11 commission only said that Saddam had no
operation connection to the 9/11 attack.

Yet, the Bush administration tried to connect the two at every
turn. And they now lie about making that connection.

So say a bunch of Democrats who play word games. "He said Saddam and
9/11 in the same paragraph! What a liar!"

Yet, that exact tactic persuaded >70% of Americans to believe there
was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, when none existed. Nice try,
but you are wrong.

You really should get out of your bush-bubble and try the
real world for a change, duckie.

Job well done, Mr. President.

Greater than 50% of the American public would disagree with
you.

ALmost 50% of the American public don't even bother to vote in
most elections.

non sequitur.

Your whole argument has been a non sequitur.

Note lack of refutation of any of my arguments.

Note total state of liberal denial.

Fred, you are the one arguing without substance here. Try again.

The war was optional. In addition, tax cuts during war are
plain stupid.

The tax cuts were passed before the war, and not repealed.
*repealing* the cuts during the recession would have been
*worse*.

Not paying for the war is worse in the long run. The tax cuts
were stupid, since smaller, directed tax cuts could have had the
same effect.

The war is paid for.

By our children and grandchildren.

Why aren't you complaining about how "our children and grandchildren"
will be paying for the Social Security and Medicare benefits that
your Democrat buddies refuse to put into fiscal order? Those make
Bush's deficit spending look like pocket change.

Bush's supposed "solution" would have put those programs much further
indebt. Yes, Social security and medicare need to be fixed. But the
key word is fixed, not destroyed.

BTW, I note you are changing the subject, rather than trying to defend
your previous lie, err, poistion that the war was already paid for.
Why is that?

Don't you ever get tired of passing on these lies?

Don't you ever get tired of being a patsy?

BWAHAAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAHAA!!!!!!

You owe me for a new monitor, Fred. I just sprayed coffee all over it.
Not to mention that my irony meter just about exploded.

<...>

Even if that were true, it is embarrassing that we haven't
managed to catch OBL. Not to mention that Iraq is a fine
recruiting tool for AQ.

There's a case to be made that we don't really want to catch
Osama. Caught, he's a martyr with a show trial for a platform. On
the run, he's the impotent lamer who can't do anything but hide
from The Man.

And inspire other radical Islamists...

Yeah, so inspiring, hiding from the US, price on his head, on the
run, calling for other people to go blow themselves to Allah...

You will note that it appears to be working...

And Iraq is a fine death trap for AQ.

This doesn't even make a tiny bit of sense.

There have been all sorts of reports, even in the MSM, about Iraqi
native groups, "insurgents" even, fighting against AQ groups. A lot
of those executed bodies they find around Baghdad turn out to be
foreign AQ fighters.

And, many of them are Iraqi Sunnis, executed by Shia militas.

Not only that, the MSM has changed their tune from "The insurgents
are winning" to "it's a civil war and the Shi'ites will massacre the
Sunnis".

Allawi (sp?) seems to agree with the MSM here.

<...>

Another librul demonstrates his abysmal comprehension of market
economies.

If Americans don't have decent paying jobs, they won't be able
to afford anything.

You do know that there's a boom on in high-tech jobs right now?
You want cites? Try the classifieds.

What about GM? Delphi? There are even many high tech jobs that are
being exported, and there could be more in the future.

Delphi is losing out because of the high cost of GM's union labor
contracts. Shall we talk about the "job bank" perhaps?

You are changing the subject again.

But no, the boom is in the new high-tech sector, not in the old
industrial sector.

Yet, I've read many articles about high tech jobs being sent overseas
as well.

Considering we are spending far more for foreign
goods than we are producing, there will come a time when we
won't be able to afford our current lifestyle.

Ah, but that's not a "trade deficit".

The trade deficit means we're spending more for imports than we're
*exporting*. Get Yang to explain it for you, if you can get him to
stop frothing at the mouth long enough.

Which we are doing. The trade deficit means we are buying more than
we are producing, meaning we are living beyond our means. Do you
understand that?

Yes, I understand that it's wrong. The trade deficit means that we
are importing more than we are exporting. It most certainly does NOT
mean that we're buying more than we're producing.

You are daft. If it didn't mean that, why are we borrowing money from
other countries to pay for our trade deficit?

http://www.investorwords.com/5020/trade_deficit.html
trade deficit - definition of trade deficit - A negative balance of
trade, ie imports exceed exports. opposite of trade surplus.

It may be that we're importing more than we produce, though I *very*
seriously doubt that. US GDP is around twelve trillion dollars.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying? We are
importing more than we are exporting. Therefore, we produce less than
we buy.

Other countries are allowing us to borrow money to do so.

Every economist I have read knows this is a serious problem. Only
slavish followers of Bush, such as yourself, don't agree.

Another neocon doesn't understand market economies.

Another librul myth explodes. BOOOM!

Your explosion was more of a fizzle, since what i said was correct.
But, keep drinking that neocon kool aide...

Sigh.

No, you should hang your head in embarrassment.