"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cyCsf.6$eR.1@fed1read03...

Unpleasant Truth wrote:

"AcesLucky" <acesLucky@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:PLcrf.813$TI6.261@fed1read03...

Unpleasant Truth wrote:

"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:gndfq1lhvnbtg89811buacgfp8a3pon3e3@4ax.com...

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 05:45:41 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

Michael Gray wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:48:23 GMT, Mickey
<mickey_and_edith@nomorephishsbcglobal.net> wrote:

cpt banjo wrote:

The original motto on our money was appropriate:

"Mind Your Business"

How about Robert Heinlein's proposed anti-newdeal motto
"There Ain't No Free Lunch"

Or the Republican's proposal:

"Ignorance is Strength"

Or the DNC motto

"Our Constituants are too Stupid to Notice That We've Been the

Ones

Screwing Them All Along."

Nah. Would use too much metal.
They need that for cluster bombs to bring democracy to the world.

I guess we need to be more like Democrats and use massive fire

bombing

and

nukes. It worked in Germany and Japan.

Or better still, just keep racking up trillion dollar debts, (much of
which is now owed to China), while the REAL enemy continues to make

home

videos at leisure, and we will have effectively nuked ourselves!

So you support drilling in ANWR and off our coasts to cut our trade
deficits? And you support serious Social Security and Medicare

reform?

If you don't, you have no standing to complain about our debts.

Really? The debts came from unchecked spending. See, all three branches
of government are now republican and so there is no oversight.

Do you have to work at being so stupid or does it come naturally?

The Republicans have a bare majority in the House and Senate, especially
considering the number of liberal Republicans in the latter. Have you
been asleep during the past 5 years as Democrats have engaged in totally
unprecedented filibustering to obstruct Bush's judicial nominees? The
Democrats have also blocked meaningful budget cuts, drilling in ANWR (as I
mentioned above - do you even read what you reply to?), Social Security
reform, tort reform, vouchers - all of which would cut spending.

As for the courts, we still have 4 hard left liberals (even if 2 of them
were appointed by moderate Republicans) and 2 left leaning "moderates" on
the Supreme Court. We will soon replace one left leaning "moderate" with
a conservative, but that still leaves us with a left wing court.

The debt is the result of OVER SPENDING while significantly reducing
revenues from the wealthy and corporate base.

You are right that we are grossly overspending on social welfare programs.
But Democrats have NEVER proposed any serious cuts in those programs. And
they squeal like the stuck pigs they are when Republicans propose - not
cuts - but miniscule reductions in the rate of growth.

As for revenues - you're totally wrong. Revenues are up - as almost
always happens when tax rates are cut.

The government got a big pay cut, while the wealthy got a big pay raise.
It's that simple. There is no trickle down effect.

1. You're stuck on stupid. Revenues dropped as a result of the Clinton
recession and 9/11. Almost every sane economist (the "sane" is there to
exclude the likes of Krugman) agrees the tax cuts were instrumental in
bringing the economy back.
2. The government needs a large pay cut, and concomitant cuts in domestic
social welfare spending.
3. Getting to keep your own money is not a pay raise. If you employ a
thief who's been embezzling from your company, when he gets caught, did
you just get a pay raise?
3. Everyone benefited from the tax cuts - the poorest benefited the most
in terms of percentage (which I oppose, since people should be taxed based
on principles of equality not Marxism). The poor also benefit from a
growing economy. The major problem facing the poor is their own bad
behavior - encouraged by the left wing welfare state (drug use,
illegitimacy, boys brought up without fathers) and a ***** poor public
school system - also courtesy of the left, who won't even give the poor
the vouchers they want.

Ain't this Repugnant leadership, devoid of our traditional checks and
balances, great?

Oh, we have more than enough "checks and balances" that the left wing
Democrats, joined by a handful of moron Republicans, were able to take
huge strides toward rebuilding the Clinton/Gorelick Wall which ensured
9/11 could not be prevented, and to try to make the case that American
"citizens" who are working with al Qaeda have the "constitutional

right"

to get their marching orders without being eavesdropped on.

Huh?

What exactly do you need explained? You haven't heard of the Democrats'
obstruction of the Patriot Act or Democrat outrage that the NSA monitors
phone calls between Al Qaeda and American traitors?

The ironic thing is that when the terrorists hit again, the victims

will

overwhelmingly be liberal Democrats, who make up a large majority of

our

biggest cities - and biggest targets. And afterwards, no Democrat

will

ever win another federal election and our civil liberties will REALLY

be

jeopardized. All thanks to the deranged, left wing Bush haters.

Uh, 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, in spite of plenty of warning.

Every one of the terrorists who executed the 9/11 attacks was in the
country under Clinton's watch. The plans were all complete under
Clinton's watch. Bin Laden was handed over on a silver platter but
Clinton deliberately let him go. Clinton then deliberately turned down a
number of excellent opportunities to kill bin Laden after he had let him
escape to Afghanistan. Clinton's AG and Deputy AG put up the wall to
protect Clinton from investigation for taking illegal campaign
contributions from our other enemy - the Red Chinese Army (gee, now why do
you think all our enemies wanted Clinton to be in office and not a
Republican, hmm?). That wall made it impossible to prevent 9/11. You
think somehow 9/11 would not have happened if Gore had won instead of
lost? 9/11 would have happened the same. What would have been different
is the Taliban would still be running Afghanistan and Saddam would still
be in power, closer to having nukes than Iran is now.

Does Bush share any of the blame for 9/11? Absolutely. He should have
fired every Clinton appointee he could and reassigned all the rest to
remote outposts around the world where they could not have done any more
harm. He should have rescinded EVERY executive order Clinton ever made,
and directives his underlings made - including putting up the wall.
Unfortunately, Bush was distracted by the attempted coup launched by Gore,
which delayed the transition into office by months. He also had to deal
with the Clinton recession and his stock market crash. (By contrast,
Clinton had NO problems facing him when he entered office. Clinton left
America far worse off than when he came in.)

And
giving away all our resources to the rich, and spending them on a war
against people who didn't attack us, has nothing to do with democrats.
The man lied, period.

Your Marxist ideology is showing again. Letting people keep the money
they EARN is not "giving away all our resources to the rich." The federal
government takes 20% of GDP. That's way too much. And way too little of
our GDP is spent on national security.

Nothing you say follows any logic.

Put it this way: where would we be if we continue in this same
direction? A few more trillion down the hole? We will have no economy.
We'd be just another third world country except with nukes.

Not because of our measly defense spending. It's the unconstitutional,
left wing social welfare programs - Social Security and Medicare - that
are bankrupting us. Just look at what's happening in Old Europe and
Japan. They spend nothing on defense and they're going bankrupt faster
than we are - because they're more leftist than we are.

Apparently you don't pay any attention to the news either. The
Republicans just tried to cut spending. Democrats squealed like the stuck
pigs they are and blocked it.

And when the terrorists hit again, the Bush's will probably be spending
the evening with the bin Laden's over dinner the way they were the first
time. Get a clue.

You're an *****. Why did Clinton keep letting bin Laden go? Maybe he was
taking campaign contributions from al Qaeda, the same way he took them
from the Red Chinese. The Chinese got our nuclear missile technology in
exchange. Maybe bin Laden got his freedom - to kill us.

We can't take 4 more years of this crap.

You're rather have Democrats back in charge? Instead of building our
national security up, the Democrats are trying to dismantle it - the way
they've been doing for 40 years. They want to put Gorelick's wall back up
and they want constitutional protection for American traitors to make
phone calls with al Qaeda without being tapped. (And if we catch any
traitors, the Democrat can just pardon them, like Clinton did.) Is that
what the Democrat constituency has become?

Sadly, it appears so. Democrats - except for a very few exceptions - are
not serious about our national security. That's why we can never trust
them with it again.