On 1/29/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The Democrats in Congress are not yes men/women.
Now? or what? I guess more of the blame falls on the Republicans, as they had the majority. But they all kowtowed(neat werd). Lilly livered basteds. > So what's this?: > > "... the dilemma that we have is that to lower the action levels, so > they're > > protective of fetuses, it would actually put the availability of certain > > kinds of fish in question. We would lose some fish." Then he is asked: > "Like > > King Mackeral [sic], shark, and swordfish?" He replies, "Well, those in > > particular, but also tuna." (emphasis added, Macro International, Inc. > 2000i > > - Boston, November 8, 8 pm, pg > > Who was president in November 2000? > Hint: it wasn't Jr. And thus my point about "it was already a skeleton", I guess. Bush Jr. took it to the next level. Should I bring up lowering EPA standards? > So do you think the nice folks blowing up women and children are the > > > good guys or are they all evil? > > > Well, that depends. Sometimes that's us. How did that line go? "have > > you killed people?" "Yes- but they were all bad". True Lies. Hehehe. > > That's not funny. Oh, my bad. You seriously think good and evil are that clear cut? Or so long as we kill in the name of "good", it's ok? I bet you also don't mind sending a couple of innocents to the electric chair, so long as more "bad" people "get it" than good/innocent people? Where do you draw the line, and what does it take to be justified? > > We actually work with most of the Middle Eastern countries. Remember > > > Kuwait? > > > > And should I go google for the the dollar counts of aid? I'm sure we > give > > just as much to Kuwait. (sly wink). > > Yes please. Do we count the hundred and a half billion we've paid their neighbors to sign peace treaties with them? The sneaky tendrils stretch wide and far. ;] http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/aw_1021.shtml <--- crappy site & silly http://www.oecd.org/countrylist/0,2578,en_2649_34447_25602317_1_1_1_1,00.html http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/10/1877956.gif <--- Israel http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/58/24404201.gif <--- Kuwait http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/52/1878796.gif <--- Sudan > of congress, or NAFTA or something. Don't try to compare the lies of a > > personal nature with the lies of the sort Bush Jr. has > professed. Really > > Sam, > > it doesn't compare. > > Document one lie. Are you kidding me? Isn't there a web site devoted to this? http://liesofbush.com *Bush:* We're now in the 41st month of uninterrupted job growth, in a recovery that has *created 7.2 million new jobs* -- so far. Actual Bush quote: "We do not monitor calls from America, we monitor calls coming in from foreign countries and vice versa." ^--- not really a lie, I guess. This sentence is false. > How did Clinton's lies effect /my/ freedom? > > I thought you were judging characters. We know Clinton is a liar but > you're ok with it. You think Bush is a liar and you're not ok with it. Specifically, I don't mind that Clinton lied about his personal life as much as I mind Bush Jr. taking us to war on false pretense, saying he's in the legal right while usurping our civil liberties, etc.. > Well, ok. You like the idea of having your phone tapped? > > Since I don't chat with al Qaeda my phone isn't tapped. However, if > they called me I would hope someone would listen in. Ah. The good old, "if you're doing nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear" argument, eh? That's a load of BS, and hopefully you know it. Besides the fact that: is it every call from the middle east, or just ones from suspected terrorists? Wait, don't answer that-- some professors are taking these jokers to court, maybe some real data will come out. > Maybe you > > wouldn't mind if some g-man tapped your mom's phone, learned of an > > affair with the gardener, and then blackmailed your mom into voting for > > a gnostic democrat president? If it were up to "them", you'd never > learn > > the power was abused-- For National Security, of course. To keep you > > safe. > > If a gman were going to blackmail my mom, why would he bother using a > legal wiretap? Because it's there, duh! That's the whole problem with having this stuff. And it looks like it's getting pretty hard to get an illegal wire tap, and thus my major malfunction. It's horrible, and more people should be upset. > Lilly livered bastards taking our liberties. Fnord patriot act. > > This latest crop of them has been the worst. Don't defent them, Sam! > > Worse than say having the IRS audit you? Worse than having hundreds of > personal republican FBI files on Clintons desk? Yes. Hands down. Way worse. You're advocating institutionalizing the practice. You really think it's a good way to run things? > Our culture had more of an impact on the wall than anything else. > > Well, that and them putting the military in charge. Smooth move X-lax! > > So Hollywood got the wall taken down not Reagan? What? Were you serious in proposing it was Reagan that brought the wall down? Went out there with his horn... circled whatever-half-of- germany-it-was-that-were-the-pinkos seven times? It was a great moment in my life, seeing that wall come down. Please don't cheapen it by suggesting something as silly as Reagan was responsible. That's just laughable. Again, my money is on Blue Jeans and the Beatles over good old Ron. Did it to themselves. > And now look. Latest fashion comes from the east! Bill started it, > > and bush was so wrapped up with his private crusade he didn't even > > notice. If you subscribe to that whole power struggle whatnot. > > I lost you again. Fashion trends. Right now I hear Japan or some such is where all the "hip" countries are looking. I was implying that China is getting in the mix, and I wonder how much of it is related to Clinton. > Yup, Bush Jr. pretty much sucked the marrow out of an already > > pretty skeletal assemblage... well, it wasn't just him. No, it was > > a team effort. Too bad we only see the best in people. =] > > Gone I'm saying I'm not arguing that Clinton was some angel, or a "golden age" , even. That bastard did underhanded stuff too, is my point. These politicians have been screwing us for a long time, (although we accept it, so much as to have stereotypes about 'em that we are apparently unashamed of) but on the Republican watch things got worse than ever in history. And they are the party that is based on the opposite! 42% spending? WTF? Homeland Security? WTF? But now I guess you'll pull all that data that says how whenever Republicans get in the mix the economy does better, our deficit goes down, etc., etc.,. Right? Like with Reagan? Oh, wait, I keep forgetting-- Reagan set it up for Clinton to cash in! It really does work, this theory about giving to the rich being the same as giving to the poor. We just didn't give it enough time. LOL. Yes, I'm holding the Republican party responsible as well. Those fools stuck together, all the way over the cliff-- and took our great country with 'em. I'm a fool as well, sorry if I offend any Reds. We're human-- it's just dangerous getting together in groups sometimes is all. That's a party that needs a face-lift, reform, etc.. Some grass-roots type stuff like the Dems got when Bush Jr. went to the White House. Clearer? =D -ps sorry for the republican bashing. It was really sad to NOT see more republicans upset at the un-republican actions. Although I have a romantic idea of Republican, which apparently isn't the real deal. It's not really about conservativism, fiscal responsibility, etc.. Sad. Guess it really is about rich getting richer, etc.. *sniff* -pss (or is that pps? I ferget) - if you're a "good" republican-- meaning, if you think Bush Jr. and his ilk have screwed over the country & NOT behaved like good republicans should-- you're alright, and I wish more of you had gotten together and gotten some reform going before it got to the point of switching out congress (or whatever it was that just happened that was a "no confidence" type vote thing), just to get the people in power to listen to the people they're powered by. I mean, doesn't that look bad? Why wasn't there some type of huge split within the Republican party? A public split, you know? Surely Democrats shouldn't be telling Republicans to reform? I mean, isn't that what Republican was supposed to be about-- Reform? O, wait, we're in opposite land now! The Democrats are the New Reds! The REAL neo-cons!!! Ah, ha!! Now it all makes sense. (red meaning republican, not Russian (heh, is it still even called Russia? ;)) Come to the dark side. There can be only two. Pbbbbt! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http:http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:226414 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
