|
Sports » rec.sport.golf » LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!!
| LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1024963] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 17:20 |
|
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domestic News&storyid=2006-05-14T143338Z_01_N14226124_RTRUKOC_0_U S-BUSH-LAURA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
JUST LIKE HILARY TALKING ABOUT THE GREAT RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.
LOL!
LOL!
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1024995 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:07 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 17:20:04 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<nobody [at] dizum.com> wrote:
> http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domestic News&storyid=2006-05-14T143338Z_01_N14226124_RTRUKOC_0_U S-BUSH-LAURA.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
>
>
>JUST LIKE HILARY TALKING ABOUT THE GREAT RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.
>LOL!
>
>LOL!
She knows these polls are a phenomenon of the liberal media who hate
Bush, want Democrats in, and who are acting as an arm of the DNC. They
feed the gullible US the news they manufacture and then ask them what
they think in opinion polls. DUHHHHH, what else are they going to
think? Especially those who get their "News" from MTV and the
Letterman show, etc.
Bush is as popular as he ever was. He would be reelected against Gore
or Kerry today. Most of the Republican candidates across the nation
will win against their buffoon democrat opponents-- because people
know that the democrats could not do better in any of the issues
people are concerned about. And they know the liberals would disarm
us again, make us blind again in intelligence gathering, and make us
vulnerable to attack after attack from radical Islam.
If you want to see Israel driven to use nukes--and possibly start
WWIII, just let liberals disarm the US and abandon Iraq, etc.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1024998 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:17 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1024999 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:28 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025001 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 20:42 |
|
On 15 May 2006 18:17:24 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>Spoken predicably by one of the blind, deaf, and doltish 29% that still
>support the dope in the fright house. I love it. Much better than a
>scarlet "A" on someone's sweater. Hopefully, you did not take off that
>"W" sticker on your bumper either.
It's their turn, the Democrats were just as blind, deaf, and doltish
in their denial of the facts until they were brought down. Now we
see the same type of denial with the Republicans.
It's so easy to assume that any thinking person *has* to think like my
side.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025010 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:07 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025016 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 22:35 |
|
On 15 May 2006 20:07:28 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>Actually, I really don't care if they think like me.......just as long as
>they think. My biggest problem with bush is that I require a president,
>whoever he/she might be to be able to string five or six words together
>in a sentence without stumbling over half of them. Policy comes later.
I suspect none of us have reached your stated ideal.
But I will note that high IQ thinking seems to be pretty divided in
ideals. If a genie popped out of a bottle and offered me a political
wish - I suspect it would be unwise to wish upon the people who
believe the other way from me increased competence.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025019 ] |
Mo, 15 Mai 2006 23:01 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025034 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:38 |
|
On 15 May 2006 20:07:28 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>In article <7pih6295louphbjl653889eq7r97h6nt3d [at] 4ax.com>
>Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
>
>Actually, I really don't care if they think like me.......just as long as
>they think. My biggest problem with bush is that I require a president,
>whoever he/she might be to be able to string five or six words together
>in a sentence without stumbling over half of them. Policy comes later.
But he is a mult-millionaire and President of the US, and you're not.
Sorta foolish to be spewing criticism at someone who can fly a jet
plane, graduated from Harvard Business School, was the most popular
governor of Texas in history, owned a pro baseball team, and became
president of the US. BTW, he has a higher IQ than either Gore or
Kerry.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025040 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:57 |
|
In article <024i629r0dfmjpi8qt1debeofvsu66klok [at] 4ax.com>,
larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> On 15 May 2006 20:07:28 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <7pih6295louphbjl653889eq7r97h6nt3d [at] 4ax.com>
> >Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
> >
> >Actually, I really don't care if they think like me.......just as long as
> >they think. My biggest problem with bush is that I require a president,
> >whoever he/she might be to be able to string five or six words together
> >in a sentence without stumbling over half of them. Policy comes later.
>
> But he is a mult-millionaire and President of the US, and you're not.
> Sorta foolish to be spewing criticism at someone who can fly a jet
> plane, graduated from Harvard Business School, was the most popular
> governor of Texas in history, owned a pro baseball team, and became
> president of the US. BTW, he has a higher IQ than either Gore or
> Kerry.
>
> Larry
Oh, good Lord, here he goes again. Correction - Dubya is a
multi-millionaire a) because daddy and grandpa were wealthy, and b)
because a group of wealthier Texans decided that a dimwit with a
well-known name would enable them to propagate their cause without being
detected. He got into Yale and then Harvard because grandpa was a
trustee of the first, and his father a congressman for the second, his
pro baseball team has never challenged for a pennant, and sold Sammy
Sosa to Chicago for a song. Yes, he could fly a jet, but he chose not to
for most of his tour in the TANG, for some reason best known to himself
and his physician, and his SAT were 200 clear points below the average
entering Yale freshman. There are no reliable comparative IQ
measurements of Dubya, Kerry, and Gore, so that won't fly, but George
had better pray that English expression and geography, to name but two,
are subjects that do not appear on any they might take.
So, troll away, Larry. To the rest of us it's just the same old
blinkered BS.
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025041 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 01:57 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025130 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 18:01 |
|
On 15 May 2006 23:57:16 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>In article <024i629r0dfmjpi8qt1debeofvsu66klok [at] 4ax.com>
>larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>Can you then explain why a guy with all these glowing attributes is still
>such a dumbass and has managed to screw up everything he's ever tried?
>Then again, if he is as successful as you claim, why would a loser like
>you even bother with him? Just curious.
The reason he was selected to run first for Governor, then for
President is because people like me knew he would do a great
job--despite the seething hatred from the left. We supported him and
he excelled--he has vision and the courage of his convictions-- wildly
different than Clinton or Carter (or Gore or Kerry). The whole Bush
family, father and both brothers are supported by millions of this
nation's smartest and most successful people. Your next president
may very well also have the Bush name.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025131 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 18:02 |
|
On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:57:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>In article <024i629r0dfmjpi8qt1debeofvsu66klok [at] 4ax.com>,
> larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 15 May 2006 20:07:28 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7pih6295louphbjl653889eq7r97h6nt3d [at] 4ax.com>
>> >Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >Actually, I really don't care if they think like me.......just as long as
>> >they think. My biggest problem with bush is that I require a president,
>> >whoever he/she might be to be able to string five or six words together
>> >in a sentence without stumbling over half of them. Policy comes later.
>>
>> But he is a mult-millionaire and President of the US, and you're not.
>> Sorta foolish to be spewing criticism at someone who can fly a jet
>> plane, graduated from Harvard Business School, was the most popular
>> governor of Texas in history, owned a pro baseball team, and became
>> president of the US. BTW, he has a higher IQ than either Gore or
>> Kerry.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Oh, good Lord, here he goes again. Correction - Dubya is a
>multi-millionaire a) because daddy and grandpa were wealthy, and b)
>because a group of wealthier Texans decided that a dimwit with a
>well-known name would enable them to propagate their cause without being
>detected. He got into Yale and then Harvard because grandpa was a
>trustee of the first, and his father a congressman for the second, his
>pro baseball team has never challenged for a pennant, and sold Sammy
>Sosa to Chicago for a song. Yes, he could fly a jet, but he chose not to
>for most of his tour in the TANG, for some reason best known to himself
>and his physician, and his SAT were 200 clear points below the average
>entering Yale freshman. There are no reliable comparative IQ
>measurements of Dubya, Kerry, and Gore, so that won't fly, but George
>had better pray that English expression and geography, to name but two,
>are subjects that do not appear on any they might take.
>
>So, troll away, Larry. To the rest of us it's just the same old
>blinkered BS.
>
>William Clark
Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
American president?
larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025137 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 18:30 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
wrote:
>Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
>American president?
>
>larry
As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
California? Easy choice.
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025155 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 19:07 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:30:29 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight [at] conramp.net>
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
>>American president?
>>
>>larry
>As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
>California? Easy choice.
As Laura would notice and Anne Coulter would point out, there's the
difference between the two political philosophies. I only called him
a lberal, he replied with "fanatic, Over the top, lying, right-wing
zealot" and thus closes any possibility of an objective debate.
The nation notices such intemperance too, and correctly assesses that
the democrats are not ready to govern. Like Howard Dean, Nancy
Pilosi, and the other wild-eyed radicals, they are immature children
who need supervision themselves!
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025162 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 19:17 |
|
In article <vc1k62df1tpkj4itu31d92hls66bq148tg [at] 4ax.com>,
larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:30:29 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight [at] conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
> >>American president?
> >>
> >>larry
> >As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
> >California? Easy choice.
>
> As Laura would notice and Anne Coulter would point out, there's the
> difference between the two political philosophies. I only called him
> a lberal, he replied with "fanatic, Over the top, lying, right-wing
> zealot" and thus closes any possibility of an objective debate.
He called you that because in your case, it's quite obviously true.
>
> The nation notices such intemperance too, and correctly assesses that
> the democrats are not ready to govern. Like Howard Dean, Nancy
> Pilosi, and the other wild-eyed radicals, they are immature children
> who need supervision themselves!
>
> Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025166 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 19:28 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 10:07:27 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
wrote:
>On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:30:29 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight [at] conramp.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
>>>American president?
>>>
>>>larry
>>As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
>>California? Easy choice.
>
>As Laura would notice and Anne Coulter would point out, there's the
>difference between the two political philosophies. I only called him
>a lberal, he replied with "fanatic, Over the top, lying, right-wing
>zealot" and thus closes any possibility of an objective debate.
>
There is no objective debate with you LLLLarry. You're so steeped in
your own load of crap that you can't be objective. No wonder you
think that Coulter is just fine; you're cut from the same uncouth
cloth. Sad. Have you ever wondered why the conservative National
Review, along with other periodicals, dropped her?
Incidentally, you've called me much worse than a liberal (which is not
a correct label for me) in the past.
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025196 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 21:08 |
|
In article <lrtj62h4l1d9fqleihcjjt4sif26cvnbb5 [at] 4ax.com>,
larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2006 19:57:54 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <024i629r0dfmjpi8qt1debeofvsu66klok [at] 4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 15 May 2006 20:07:28 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <7pih6295louphbjl653889eq7r97h6nt3d [at] 4ax.com>
> >> >Howard Brazee <howard [at] brazee.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Actually, I really don't care if they think like me.......just as long as
> >> >they think. My biggest problem with bush is that I require a president,
> >> >whoever he/she might be to be able to string five or six words together
> >> >in a sentence without stumbling over half of them. Policy comes later.
> >>
> >> But he is a mult-millionaire and President of the US, and you're not.
> >> Sorta foolish to be spewing criticism at someone who can fly a jet
> >> plane, graduated from Harvard Business School, was the most popular
> >> governor of Texas in history, owned a pro baseball team, and became
> >> president of the US. BTW, he has a higher IQ than either Gore or
> >> Kerry.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Oh, good Lord, here he goes again. Correction - Dubya is a
> >multi-millionaire a) because daddy and grandpa were wealthy, and b)
> >because a group of wealthier Texans decided that a dimwit with a
> >well-known name would enable them to propagate their cause without being
> >detected. He got into Yale and then Harvard because grandpa was a
> >trustee of the first, and his father a congressman for the second, his
> >pro baseball team has never challenged for a pennant, and sold Sammy
> >Sosa to Chicago for a song. Yes, he could fly a jet, but he chose not to
> >for most of his tour in the TANG, for some reason best known to himself
> >and his physician, and his SAT were 200 clear points below the average
> >entering Yale freshman. There are no reliable comparative IQ
> >measurements of Dubya, Kerry, and Gore, so that won't fly, but George
> >had better pray that English expression and geography, to name but two,
> >are subjects that do not appear on any they might take.
> >
> >So, troll away, Larry. To the rest of us it's just the same old
> >blinkered BS.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
> American president?
>
> larry
Who's a Canadian? And why would we want to listen to some reactionary
Californian try to repaint the truth.
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025197 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 21:09 |
|
In article <gevj62tliiak3ek5jq0nvmkd815u7bm4f3 [at] 4ax.com>,
Bobby Knight <bknight [at] conramp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
> >American president?
> >
> >larry
> As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
> California? Easy choice.
Thank you. However, it would be vastly preferable if we didn't have to
listen to wither, but could talk about golf instead.
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025200 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 21:13 |
|
In article <vc1k62df1tpkj4itu31d92hls66bq148tg [at] 4ax.com>,
larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2006 11:30:29 -0500, Bobby Knight <bknight [at] conramp.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 16 May 2006 09:02:46 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Why would we want to listen to a liberal Canadian raving about the
> >>American president?
> >>
> >>larry
> >As opposed to a fanatic, over-the-top, lying, right-wing zealot from
> >California? Easy choice.
>
> As Laura would notice and Anne Coulter would point out, there's the
> difference between the two political philosophies. I only called him
> a lberal, he replied with "fanatic, Over the top, lying, right-wing
> zealot" and thus closes any possibility of an objective debate.
>
> The nation notices such intemperance too, and correctly assesses that
> the democrats are not ready to govern. Like Howard Dean, Nancy
> Pilosi, and the other wild-eyed radicals, they are immature children
> who need supervision themselves!
>
> Larry
This is crazy. In one sentence you castigate him for calling you
"fanatic, Over the top, lying, right-wing zealot", and in the next
sentence you refer to "Dean, Nancy Pilosi, and the other wild-eyed
radicals, . . . . .who need supervision themselves".
Has the word "hypocrite" been erased from your personal dictionary?
William Clark
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025209 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 21:56 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025210 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 21:56 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025223 ] |
Di, 16 Mai 2006 22:24 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025273 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 01:38 |
|
On 16 May 2006 19:56:50 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
>larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>I got as far as the "people like me knew he would do a good job" and
>didn't have to go on. That clears it up and again, larry lacks data.
So we don't have two new VERY conservative Supreme Court Justices and
several hundred new and very conservative Federal and Appeals Court
judges? He will likely appoint at least one more Supreme and
hundreds more below that. So, if that is all that he accomplishes,
his administration has been a major success!! Those judges will
effective shut down any possible liberal government for 30 years!
And should the dems win the House, their impeachment efforts will be
immediately shot down by the courts. Too late, folks. Those judges
are already in place.
But he is poised for a major accomplishment in the Middle East-- and
will be hailed as having solved that problem permanently. GW Bush
will be remember by history as one of the best-- like Truman not
recognized until after he leaves office. Truman was way below
40%--and now probably 80%.
If we are attacked again on his watch-- his military and his
intelligence services will kick some butt around the world. His
popularity would go back to 90% as people realize that the only thing
standing between Al Queda and destruction of their city is the
fearless GW Bush.
Clinton has effectively blinded and disarmed us during his 8 years.
9/11 happened because Al Queda perceived that America was weak.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025274 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 01:39 |
|
On 16 May 2006 20:24:06 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
wrote:
>In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
>larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>Now that my fit of uncontrollable laughter has subsided, the real reason
>bush was picked is that he came from a rich, oil family with ties to
>those needed to elect and whose father was already a president, one term
>nonwithstanding. He was a young poster boy for conservatives to rally
>'round and could be easily manipulated by the old boys that he called
>staff. Little did we know that while the manipulators gained an
>unquenchable arrogance and the manipulatee spoke English as a second
>lanugage and made Beevis and Butthead look like Mensa, would this very
>administration do its very best to bolster the previous president's stock
> and make him look not only better than when he left office, but possibly
>much, much better than he should have ever achieved. Of course, it gave
>election day shenanigan a whole new meaning and showed how the votes of 5
>old farts in a big pillared building, could elect a president when the
>rest of the country "fell short."
>For this, the repugs are rolling in despair and the limbo stick called
>the polls is singing, "how low will bush go." Now that's the real reason
>he is there.
Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
by the democrats.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025280 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 01:56 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025368 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 15:10 |
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 16:39:23 -0700, larry <larry [at] delmardata.com>
wrote:
>Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
>by the democrats.
As opposed to his actual performance on the job.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025374 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 15:24 |
|
"larry" <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote in message
news:vvnk629u5jo6nfi1pmd7j2mfvp0le28bnr [at] 4ax.com...
> On 16 May 2006 19:56:50 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
> >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >I got as far as the "people like me knew he would do a good job" and
> >didn't have to go on. That clears it up and again, larry lacks data.
>
> So we don't have two new VERY conservative Supreme Court Justices and
> several hundred new and very conservative Federal and Appeals Court
> judges? He will likely appoint at least one more Supreme and
> hundreds more below that. So, if that is all that he accomplishes,
> his administration has been a major success!! Those judges will
> effective shut down any possible liberal government for 30 years!
Who else do you think will leave the Supreme court?
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025385 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 16:39 |
|
the Moderator wrote:
> "larry" <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote in message
> news:vvnk629u5jo6nfi1pmd7j2mfvp0le28bnr [at] 4ax.com...
> > On 16 May 2006 19:56:50 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
> > >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >I got as far as the "people like me knew he would do a good job" and
> > >didn't have to go on. That clears it up and again, larry lacks data.
> >
> > So we don't have two new VERY conservative Supreme Court Justices and
> > several hundred new and very conservative Federal and Appeals Court
> > judges? He will likely appoint at least one more Supreme and
> > hundreds more below that. So, if that is all that he accomplishes,
> > his administration has been a major success!! Those judges will
> > effective shut down any possible liberal government for 30 years!
>
> Who else do you think will leave the Supreme court?
Stevens.
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025386 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 16:41 |
|
larry wrote:
> On 16 May 2006 20:24:06 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
> >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >Now that my fit of uncontrollable laughter has subsided, the real reason
> >bush was picked is that he came from a rich, oil family with ties to
> >those needed to elect and whose father was already a president, one term
> >nonwithstanding. He was a young poster boy for conservatives to rally
> >'round and could be easily manipulated by the old boys that he called
> >staff. Little did we know that while the manipulators gained an
> >unquenchable arrogance and the manipulatee spoke English as a second
> >lanugage and made Beevis and Butthead look like Mensa, would this very
> >administration do its very best to bolster the previous president's stock
> > and make him look not only better than when he left office, but possibly
> >much, much better than he should have ever achieved. Of course, it gave
> >election day shenanigan a whole new meaning and showed how the votes of 5
> >old farts in a big pillared building, could elect a president when the
> >rest of the country "fell short."
> >For this, the repugs are rolling in despair and the limbo stick called
> >the polls is singing, "how low will bush go." Now that's the real reason
> >he is there.
>
> Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
> by the democrats.
>
> Larry
Success? Success at what?
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025436 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 21:34 |
|
On 17 May 2006 07:41:14 -0700, "John B." <johnb505 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>larry wrote:
>> On 16 May 2006 20:24:06 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
>> >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Now that my fit of uncontrollable laughter has subsided, the real reason
>> >bush was picked is that he came from a rich, oil family with ties to
>> >those needed to elect and whose father was already a president, one term
>> >nonwithstanding. He was a young poster boy for conservatives to rally
>> >'round and could be easily manipulated by the old boys that he called
>> >staff. Little did we know that while the manipulators gained an
>> >unquenchable arrogance and the manipulatee spoke English as a second
>> >lanugage and made Beevis and Butthead look like Mensa, would this very
>> >administration do its very best to bolster the previous president's stock
>> > and make him look not only better than when he left office, but possibly
>> >much, much better than he should have ever achieved. Of course, it gave
>> >election day shenanigan a whole new meaning and showed how the votes of 5
>> >old farts in a big pillared building, could elect a president when the
>> >rest of the country "fell short."
>> >For this, the repugs are rolling in despair and the limbo stick called
>> >the polls is singing, "how low will bush go." Now that's the real reason
>> >he is there.
>>
>> Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
>> by the democrats.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Success? Success at what?
Best economy in 30 years, almost zero unemployment, no further attacks
since 9/11 (which was Clinton's fault), and a dozen other
measurements. Bush will be measured by history as having been a very
successful president--even if Iraq is still raging at the end of his
term.
Those who hate him are gullible victims of the liberal media- which is
now FAR more powerful than ever before in US History. 24 hours a day,
7 days a week dozens of liberal media outlets both here and around the
world relentlessly manufacture negative "news" on TV and Radio and
pound it home--and that has continued now for 6 years! Anyone who is
not discerning is a victim of that-- And quite predictably now they
hate Bush as a result of that successful media campaign--, but when
asked why, asked to list reasons, they can't say why--except inane
things like "he can't talk" or "he looks dumb."
History will be far more objective.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025439 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 21:46 |
|
In article <t7um6210l1fflrgu89ffqrvf4mjpvdu2al [at] 4ax.com>,
larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> On 17 May 2006 07:41:14 -0700, "John B." <johnb505 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >> On 16 May 2006 20:24:06 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
> >> >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Now that my fit of uncontrollable laughter has subsided, the real reason
> >> >bush was picked is that he came from a rich, oil family with ties to
> >> >those needed to elect and whose father was already a president, one term
> >> >nonwithstanding. He was a young poster boy for conservatives to rally
> >> >'round and could be easily manipulated by the old boys that he called
> >> >staff. Little did we know that while the manipulators gained an
> >> >unquenchable arrogance and the manipulatee spoke English as a second
> >> >lanugage and made Beevis and Butthead look like Mensa, would this very
> >> >administration do its very best to bolster the previous president's stock
> >> > and make him look not only better than when he left office, but possibly
> >> >much, much better than he should have ever achieved. Of course, it gave
> >> >election day shenanigan a whole new meaning and showed how the votes of 5
> >> >old farts in a big pillared building, could elect a president when the
> >> >rest of the country "fell short."
> >> >For this, the repugs are rolling in despair and the limbo stick called
> >> >the polls is singing, "how low will bush go." Now that's the real reason
> >> >he is there.
> >>
> >> Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
> >> by the democrats.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Success? Success at what?
>
> Best economy in 30 years, almost zero unemployment, no further attacks
> since 9/11 (which was Clinton's fault), and a dozen other
> measurements. Bush will be measured by history as having been a very
> successful president--even if Iraq is still raging at the end of his
> term.
>
> Those who hate him are gullible victims of the liberal media- which is
> now FAR more powerful than ever before in US History. 24 hours a day,
> 7 days a week dozens of liberal media outlets both here and around the
> world relentlessly manufacture negative "news" on TV and Radio and
> pound it home--and that has continued now for 6 years! Anyone who is
> not discerning is a victim of that-- And quite predictably now they
> hate Bush as a result of that successful media campaign--, but when
> asked why, asked to list reasons, they can't say why--except inane
> things like "he can't talk" or "he looks dumb."
>
> History will be far more objective.
>
> Larry
Larry, if you're gonna post the Rush Limbaugh and neocon line, you must
learn the jargon. It is no longer the 'liberal media' (since you
couldn't prove that), it is now the 'drive-by media'.
BTW, with the stock indexes just now, after 6 years, getting close or
exceeding what they were when Clinton was President, I'd hardly call it
the 'best economy in 30 years'.
Unemployment is a good number, but is nice fiction as it does not now,
nor has it ever accounted for those that no longer seek work, nor does
it cover those that are employed, but at lower wages. Other indexes
indicate that the middle class are seeing wage depression.
But one thing that Bush has managed to do, BORROW more money than any
other administration in history, and run up the deficit to a huge level.
Of course, your dumb ass will be the first to scream if Dems take over
and have to raise taxes to pay for all that debt. Just like you neocons
did when others had to pay off Reagan's shenanigans.
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025441 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 21:46 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025442 ] |
Mi, 17 Mai 2006 21:46 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1025470 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 01:06 |
|
On Wed, 17 May 2006 15:46:35 -0400, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons [at] mac.com> wrote:
>In article <t7um6210l1fflrgu89ffqrvf4mjpvdu2al [at] 4ax.com>,
> larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2006 07:41:14 -0700, "John B." <johnb505 [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >larry wrote:
>> >> On 16 May 2006 20:24:06 -0000, tiggerspalebride <anon [at] comments.header>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <5jtj625trnp0ceqoikeccnie5q80p19dos [at] 4ax.com>
>> >> >larry <larry [at] delmardata.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Now that my fit of uncontrollable laughter has subsided, the real reason
>> >> >bush was picked is that he came from a rich, oil family with ties to
>> >> >those needed to elect and whose father was already a president, one term
>> >> >nonwithstanding. He was a young poster boy for conservatives to rally
>> >> >'round and could be easily manipulated by the old boys that he called
>> >> >staff. Little did we know that while the manipulators gained an
>> >> >unquenchable arrogance and the manipulatee spoke English as a second
>> >> >lanugage and made Beevis and Butthead look like Mensa, would this very
>> >> >administration do its very best to bolster the previous president's stock
>> >> > and make him look not only better than when he left office, but possibly
>> >> >much, much better than he should have ever achieved. Of course, it gave
>> >> >election day shenanigan a whole new meaning and showed how the votes of 5
>> >> >old farts in a big pillared building, could elect a president when the
>> >> >rest of the country "fell short."
>> >> >For this, the repugs are rolling in despair and the limbo stick called
>> >> >the polls is singing, "how low will bush go." Now that's the real reason
>> >> >he is there.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks! Most of his success comes from the continuing underestimation
>> >> by the democrats.
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >Success? Success at what?
>>
>> Best economy in 30 years, almost zero unemployment, no further attacks
>> since 9/11 (which was Clinton's fault), and a dozen other
>> measurements. Bush will be measured by history as having been a very
>> successful president--even if Iraq is still raging at the end of his
>> term.
>>
>> Those who hate him are gullible victims of the liberal media- which is
>> now FAR more powerful than ever before in US History. 24 hours a day,
>> 7 days a week dozens of liberal media outlets both here and around the
>> world relentlessly manufacture negative "news" on TV and Radio and
>> pound it home--and that has continued now for 6 years! Anyone who is
>> not discerning is a victim of that-- And quite predictably now they
>> hate Bush as a result of that successful media campaign--, but when
>> asked why, asked to list reasons, they can't say why--except inane
>> things like "he can't talk" or "he looks dumb."
>>
>> History will be far more objective.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Larry, if you're gonna post the Rush Limbaugh and neocon line, you must
>learn the jargon. It is no longer the 'liberal media' (since you
>couldn't prove that), it is now the 'drive-by media'.
>
>BTW, with the stock indexes just now, after 6 years, getting close or
>exceeding what they were when Clinton was President, I'd hardly call it
>the 'best economy in 30 years'.
>
>Unemployment is a good number, but is nice fiction as it does not now,
>nor has it ever accounted for those that no longer seek work, nor does
>it cover those that are employed, but at lower wages. Other indexes
>indicate that the middle class are seeing wage depression.
>
>But one thing that Bush has managed to do, BORROW more money than any
>other administration in history, and run up the deficit to a huge level.
>Of course, your dumb ass will be the first to scream if Dems take over
>and have to raise taxes to pay for all that debt. Just like you neocons
>did when others had to pay off Reagan's shenanigans.
.... such as yourself. Aren't you even a little suspicious and
ashamed that you are a puppet being manipulated by the media? You
just spouted the Air America line-- which is non-sensical to any
thinking person.
Please, list for us the egegious faults and failures of GW Bush.
Then tell us what you would have done differently--knowing what he
knew at the time. Not quite fair to "Monday morning quarterback"
someone doing his best in real time.
When Bush decided to invade Iraq--that was 80% popular. Very likely
you were among those strongly favoring that action--unless you were
among the nutcase crazys who are against everything. So assuming you
were with the huge majority favoring our invading Iraq, how can you
look in the mirror having turned on the leader you urged forward? We
were attacked, he gathered his army, he looked back, you yelled "go
for it!" he led the attack, and now he looks back and you are not only
not behind him, you have joined the enemy shooting at the leader! Your
ilk is eneath contempt.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1033084 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 05:25 |
|
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Unemployment is a good number, but is nice fiction as it does not now,
> nor has it ever accounted for those that no longer seek work, nor does
> it cover those that are employed, but at lower wages. Other indexes
> indicate that the middle class are seeing wage depression.
Here's an interesting stat. Real Estate has been booming lately
indicating a thriving economy, right? Well, not so fast there!
It seems that 40% of the real estate market last year were people
buying second homes.
So in the Bush economy, only the rich are thriving. Let's give em
another tax cut, shall we? Then maybe they'll buy a 3rd home!
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-04-04-rea l-estate-usat_x.htm
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1033131 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 16:51 |
|
On 17 May 2006 20:25:08 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980 [at] aol.com>
wrote:
>
>Lloyd Parsons wrote:
>> Unemployment is a good number, but is nice fiction as it does not now,
>> nor has it ever accounted for those that no longer seek work, nor does
>> it cover those that are employed, but at lower wages. Other indexes
>> indicate that the middle class are seeing wage depression.
>
>Here's an interesting stat. Real Estate has been booming lately
>indicating a thriving economy, right? Well, not so fast there!
>It seems that 40% of the real estate market last year were people
>buying second homes.
>
>So in the Bush economy, only the rich are thriving. Let's give em
>another tax cut, shall we? Then maybe they'll buy a 3rd home!
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-04-04-rea l-estate-usat_x.htm
Class jealousy--and misplaced. Every time the wealthy do well,
everyone else does well too. JFK said correctly, "the rising tide
lifts all boats" as he cut taxes (on the wealthy) to end the recession
of 1960.
It is a simple economic fact taught in classrooms around the world.
The US agencies that help foreign countries with their economies
routinely advocate major tax cuts--the International Monetary Fund and
the World Trade Organization both counsel governments that high taxes
squash business-- which is still the primary source of jobs.
You don't seek a job from a poor man.
Larry
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1033136 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 17:04 |
|
"annika1980" <annika1980 [at] aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147922708.180871.168460 [at] 38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > Unemployment is a good number, but is nice fiction as it does not now,
> > nor has it ever accounted for those that no longer seek work, nor does
> > it cover those that are employed, but at lower wages. Other indexes
> > indicate that the middle class are seeing wage depression.
>
> Here's an interesting stat. Real Estate has been booming lately
> indicating a thriving economy, right? Well, not so fast there!
> It seems that 40% of the real estate market last year were people
> buying second homes.
>
> So in the Bush economy, only the rich are thriving. Let's give em
> another tax cut, shall we? Then maybe they'll buy a 3rd home!
>
>
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2006-04-04-rea l-estate-usat_x.htm
>
Look up the term "baby boomers".
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1033144 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 17:37 |
|
Larry as an economist, what you are saying, as what you always say, is
only slightly correct, and completely out of context. A way to grow
your economy instead is to tax at a higher rate, and then reinvest
these tax revenues into your economy, whether it is welfare, hey it
puts money in peoples pockets, or low interest loans for small
businesses. The kind of tax cuts Bush has done, and are being
advocated for other countries are regressive because they are cutting
the taxes of the richest hoping the rich will pass their savings onto
those who work below them. This trickle down economic theory is BS,
and everyone knows it.
|
|
|
| Re: LAURA BUSH DON'T BELIEVE BAD POLL NUMBERS!! [message #1033147 ] |
Do, 18 Mai 2006 17:56 |
|
"tim.moore" <mooretm [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147966638.246889.304170 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Larry as an economist, what you are saying, as what you always say, is
> only slightly correct, and completely out of context. A way to grow
> your economy instead is to tax at a higher rate, and then reinvest
> these tax revenues into your economy, whether it is welfare, hey it
> puts money in peoples pockets, or low interest loans for small
> businesses. The kind of tax cuts Bush has done, and are being
> advocated for other countries are regressive because they are cutting
> the taxes of the richest hoping the rich will pass their savings onto
> those who work below them. This trickle down economic theory is BS,
> and everyone knows it.
Everyone always says that only the rich got a tax break. No one has shown
this to be true except in the obvious sense. If taxes are cut by 10% the
person who pays $100 dollars only owes $90 and the person who pays $10.00
only owes $9.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Sep 9 13:43:26 CEST 2010
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,03447 Sekunden |
