Send Bush to Mars!

Billy It is the crocks of Enrod that are building those 11 million
dollar homes in Boca Grande. Its been years and their homes are now
finished. If Bush wins they are home free. They will not go to jail.
Bert PS Bush and Chaney go to bed with these people. Only the poor go to
jail in Florida

On 22-Jan-2004, "Rick" wrote:

Fact is, federal tax burden under Clinton increased only for those
making $100,000 a year. Meanwhile, the average American
family saw their federal tax burden drop to the lowest level since
the 1960's.

yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............... .and follow along here
Rick...........the people making OVER $100,000 per year are generaly your
BUSINESS OWNERS, hence they CREATE JOBS.

Tax the hell out of those people, and what do you get? Sooner or later they
are going to have to increase the price of their products OR, cut jobs.
Either way it's bad for the "little people".


Now take a deep breath, because I'm about to blow your mind here.

The rest of what you wrote he


And BTW, Bush and the Republican Congress have been spending
like drunken sailors ever since they gained control. But don't take
my word for it:

"It's a bit like trying to bail out the "Titanic" with a thimble because
we are in the midst of one of the greatest spending in our history.
George Bush's administration - George W. Bush's administration is
spending domestic money faster than Clinton, faster than Bush, Sr.,
Bush, the elder, faster than Reagan.

"You have to go back to the Ford administration to find a time when
domestic spending has risen so fast, that's not including defense
spending; that's not including the prescription drugs plan that's about
to be passed. It's not just Bush; it's the Congress. Fiscal discipline
has just disappeared in the past year or two..."
-- David Brooks, conservative commentator

Two words for you Rick..........I AGREE! That's the only thing you have
posted thus far that is 100% right on the money. Let me tell you this, us
conservatives (the little ones) are not happy about it one bit. And I don't
need a website backing up your claims either. You're right. When anyone,
conservative or democrat is right, they deserve to be treated fairly.

We can argue if you like about how (hopefuly) these tax cuts (if made
permanent) will help increase revenue to the Government to help pay off
these massive spending projects. What? You don't believe me? Hey I gave you
credit, give me some. The Democratic congressional budget records PROVE that
everytime taxes are lowered, the revenue to the Government increases because
of new jobs, growth, spending (private spending) etc...etc..

We could also argue about the Health care plan. It sucks, and to make it
worse, nobody wants it. I mean really, do you see people in the streets
demonstrating for Health care? NOW? Give me a break. It's a politcal game
with a huge cost, but it sounds great. So both sides play this game. Clinton
could'nt get it done. It appears Bush will. Maybe good for the GOP? Maybe
horrible for the country? We shall see. I think it's fair to say it's too
early to tell yet.

I'm with you 100% on the spending Rick. It's gotta stop. On the other hand,
I'd still rather have Republicans spending the $$$ on potentialy useful
things, rather than the democrats spending it on trying to re-distribute the
wealth.

You could say that sounds like right wing banter, etc...etc....but be real
here. That's basicaly what Democrats do. Tax the hell out of people who work
very hard to get to that $100,000 plateu.......and give it to those who are
(majority) undeserving, lazy, uneducated (self choice) slobs.

Yes, there are truly some "hard luck" cases out there, and those people
should be helped. But I will never concede that the "majority" of us
unfortunate ones ALL are hard luck cases. Most of them are lazy pricks
trying to take advantage of what the democrats will "give" them.

And you'd really flip out if I told you why the democrats try to give them
everything, but that's another topic. Sorry I got so long winded.

wrote in message m...

On 22-Jan-2004, "Rick" wrote:

Fact is, federal tax burden under Clinton increased only for those
making $100,000 a year. Meanwhile, the average American
family saw their federal tax burden drop to the lowest level since
the 1960's.

yeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............... .and follow along here
Rick...........the people making OVER $100,000 per year are generaly your
BUSINESS OWNERS, hence they CREATE JOBS.

Tax the hell out of those people, and what do you get? Sooner or later they
are going to have to increase the price of their products OR, cut jobs.
Either way it's bad for the "little people".

Ah yes, the disproven "trickle down" theory.. I remember the
1980s very well, when the wealth trickled down, all the way to
rich people's bank accounts -- and stayed there.

Supply-side economics is nothing more than an lame excuse to
steal from the poor to give to the rich. The "wealth of the nation"
is NOT Donald Trump, it's middle-class America.

Now take a deep breath, because I'm about to blow your mind here.

The rest of what you wrote he


And BTW, Bush and the Republican Congress have been spending
like drunken sailors ever since they gained control. But don't take
my word for it:

"It's a bit like trying to bail out the "Titanic" with a thimble because
we are in the midst of one of the greatest spending in our history.
George Bush's administration - George W. Bush's administration is
spending domestic money faster than Clinton, faster than Bush, Sr.,
Bush, the elder, faster than Reagan.

"You have to go back to the Ford administration to find a time when
domestic spending has risen so fast, that's not including defense
spending; that's not including the prescription drugs plan that's about
to be passed. It's not just Bush; it's the Congress. Fiscal discipline
has just disappeared in the past year or two..."
-- David Brooks, conservative commentator

Two words for you Rick..........I AGREE! That's the only thing you have
posted thus far that is 100% right on the money. Let me tell you this, us
conservatives (the little ones) are not happy about it one bit. And I don't
need a website backing up your claims either. You're right. When anyone,
conservative or democrat is right, they deserve to be treated fairly.

So you blame Clinton for Bush's pathetic domestic record
out of one side of your mouth, and then admit Bush and his
Republican buddies spend like drunken sailors out of the
other. Brilliant. Spoken like a true politician.

We can argue if you like about how (hopefuly) these tax cuts (if made
permanent) will help increase revenue to the Government to help pay off
these massive spending projects. What? You don't believe me? Hey I gave you
credit, give me some. The Democratic congressional budget records PROVE that
everytime taxes are lowered, the revenue to the Government increases because
of new jobs, growth, spending (private spending) etc...etc..

Tax cuts stimulate economic growth only when there is a
corresponding fiscal discipline. When there isn't fiscal
discipline tax cuts accomplish nothing, except to give a
VERY small group of Republican fat cats more millions.
This was proven conclusively under Reagan, and Bush is
in the process of plunging us yet again into debt that our
grandkids will still be paying off.

We could also argue about the Health care plan. It sucks, and to make it
worse, nobody wants it. I mean really, do you see people in the streets
demonstrating for Health care? NOW? Give me a break. It's a politcal game
with a huge cost, but it sounds great. So both sides play this game. Clinton
could'nt get it done. It appears Bush will. Maybe good for the GOP? Maybe
horrible for the country? We shall see. I think it's fair to say it's too
early to tell yet.

I'm with you 100% on the spending Rick. It's gotta stop. On the other hand,
I'd still rather have Republicans spending the $$$ on potentialy useful
things, rather than the democrats spending it on trying to re-distribute the
wealth.

News flash, Billy. The programs are the same. The choice
we've been given is either tax-and-spend (Democrats) or
borrow-and-spend (Republicans). Either we pay or our
grandkids pay, and given that choice I'll take the former.

Rick

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
BV You are very nieve. Its been said over and over again."if the NY
stock exchange was run as it is today no one would buy stock " It now
comes under corporate fraud. Martha is not going to jail Bert


If the NYSE was run as it is today, nobody would buy stock? What?!?! As far
as I know the NYSE is run as it is today, and there are plenty of shares
trading hands.

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

Have a nice life rick. I give up.

LOL, yeah......I'm one of the fat cat republicans the demolibs are always
talking about. Me and my wife EARN under 60K a year. Are we considered
middle class? Hell no. We are part of the "rich" right wing that has too
much and deserves nothing.

After all, me and wife are not really EARNING that money. No, you know it
was all inherited from rich daddy, etc..etc..
Liberals are such a joke. Their party is a joke, their ideals are very
simple. Get as many people dependent on Governemnt as possible, so that they
can stay in power, and turn more and more sectors of the American Country
into their socialistic dream land.

I have a self directed Roth IRA, I invest when I can and what I can. Just
checked out my #'s. Since last year when I first began investing, I'm up
almost 50% thanks to Ebay, and nearly 20% from microsoft.

Anyways, never tell facts to demolibs, they'll just change the subject or
start calling names. Which is why their lame ass party of tree huggers and
tax robbers are lossing damn near every election they are in. The American
People are finally (after 40 years) starting to see the Bull**** that is
almost always the Democratic Party.

As for who I'll be voting for? Hell, I'm going to vote for Al Sharpton in
the Primary here. ROFLMAO!

"Rick" wrote in
:

wrote in message
m...
There are quite a few BIG TIME corporate crooks going to jail or
being charged and will be sent to jail as we speak. Ever heard of
Enron?

Excuse me, but exactly how much jail time has Ken Lay served?


Well, he hasn't even seen his day in court yet so it's kind of premature to
ask how much jail time he's done. However, Fastow is about to go to jail
for 10 years and the reason it's "only" ten years, IMO, is because he's
going to spill the beans on Lay.

Those Enron execs are slowly but surely going down. It's just hard to
build a case with crimes like this. BTW, Lay broke the law under Clinton
and will probably be convicted and go to prison under Bush's
adminsitration.

BTW, it sucks that Hubble is being retired; it doesn't suck that the SST is
being retired.

(G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote in news:21006-40106388-17
@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net:

Billy It is the crocks of Enrod that are building those 11 million
dollar homes in Boca Grande. Its been years and their homes are now
finished. If Bush wins they are home free. They will not go to jail.
Bert PS Bush and Chaney go to bed with these people. Only the poor go to
jail in Florida


Isn't Fastow about to go to jail for 10 years? They broke the law under
Clinton's administration and are being prosecuted under Bush's.

if it's one thing I learned from arguing with a liberal..............when
you present FACTS, they change the subject, OR, alter the facts to fit their
overal socialistic agenda.

How can you argue with someone that believes 2+2 = 5? You can't. Liberals!

Billy You can argue with me I'm not so liberal. I believe equal justice
for all. I have lived long enough to know high political office,and lots
of bucks can keep you out of jail. That goes for demacrates,and
republicans. I feel bad for the poor people that commit crimes for they
never steal enough money to stay out of jail. Martha Stewart will give
back half the money about 75 million,and do 500 hours of social
good(teach kids how to cut out paper dolls neatly) If the very rich go
to jail it has to have a golf course. They are alowed to leave on
weekends.etc. Think of the jail Nixon cronies went to,and
you will no I'm right. Nixon told us he lies,,and also adds he is not a
crook. Clinton also lies when he tells us he did not have sex with
Monica. Bert