Does anyone know if Wesley Clark was ever a pilot?

Kerry is as left as Teddy....................

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109259,00.html

Looks like the only difference is Kerry flys instead of drinks.


On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:18:05 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:



"H.J." wrote:

"David Reinhart" wrote in message
...
Since I live about 30 miles from Boston I shudder to think what would
happen every time John came home to visit. My home airport (FIT) is

Dont worry. Him becoming president is a problem you never have to worry
about.

Ya know, I seem to recall a few posters saying that about a guy named Bush four
years ago.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

All of the democratic dwarfs are far lefters, don't let em kid you... free
this, and free that, and it's 'your' right to have this, and the government
is obligated to give, and I'm going to make this mandatory and that
required, and on, and on... No mention of who is going to pay for it - oh
yea, I forgot... It's the rich *******s like me that work 14 hours a day and
actually have to pay taxes and don't have a free card for Walter Reed...
denny

Kerry is as left as Teddy....................

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:56:53 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

No mention of who is going to pay for it - oh
yea, I forgot... It's the rich *******s like me that work 14 hours a day and
actually have to pay taxes

It would seem to me that President Clinton handed your boy a zero
economic deficit, and baby Bush ran it up to a projected 2-1/2
$trillion. Let's stick to the facts, not misperceptions.

Incidently, you aren't rich; they don't pay taxes. :-)

In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

No mention of who is going to pay for it - oh
yea, I forgot... It's the rich *******s like me that work 14 hours a day
and
actually have to pay taxes

It would seem to me that President Clinton handed your boy a zero
economic deficit, and baby Bush ran it up to a projected 2-1/2
$trillion. Let's stick to the facts, not misperceptions.

yes, please, let's stick to the facts.

--
Bob Noel

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , Larry Dighera
wrote:

No mention of who is going to pay for it - oh
yea, I forgot... It's the rich *******s like me that work 14 hours a
day
and
actually have to pay taxes

It would seem to me that President Clinton handed your boy a zero
economic deficit, and baby Bush ran it up to a projected 2-1/2
$trillion. Let's stick to the facts, not misperceptions.

yes, please, let's stick to the facts.

Oh!!! Why ruin it?

Awwwright, now I'm mad, Larry... First, I voted for the Libertarian
candidate for President, not either of the two big spenders...

Next, GWB is not my guy... I had problems with the Iraq deal from minute
1... I have problems with large parts of the current RNC agenda - but
that's another tirade...The entire country of Iraq is not worth the life of
even one of our kids in uniform...
My sense is that the big players in the three branches of government, and
the industrial military complex, saw an impending oil crises down the road
if we did not do something to change the power structure in arabia
(specifically Saudi Arabia)... The Clinton administration understood this
but the big guy chose not to rock the boat whilst he was busily avoiding
being impeached...I don't have a problem with protecting the future of this
country and not so incidentally, the industrialized western nations - I do
have a problem with the country and the method this administration under
took to force those changes... wrong country, wrong bunch of thieves and
murderers

Next, Clinton did not hand anyone a zero deficit... Those numbers were
political cookery right from the start... The country was in deficit every
minute of the way, before, during, and after, the Clinton administration...
And only because of the upturn in the world economy for nearly a decade did
the amount of money the government was extorting from businesses and stock
holders statistically put us in a predicted surplus *** if the rate of
increase in government revenues continued for the forseeable future*** -
jeez, how gullible do you have to be?

And, the Clinton administration was not all bad - our zipper boy is a
centrist and understands that the business community could not be crucified
to support the party line, and still provide jobs and bennies for all those
gullible, democratic voters... I agree with significant parts of the
business oriented bills he signed into law...

Read, think, don't parrot
cheers .... denny

Oh, another piece of common knowledge, I suppose...

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message Incidently, you aren't
rich; they don't pay taxes. :-)

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Awwwright, now I'm mad, Larry... First, I voted for the Libertarian
candidate for President, not either of the two big spenders...


Next, Clinton did not hand anyone a zero deficit... Those numbers were
political cookery right from the start... The country was in deficit every
minute of the way, before, during, and after, the Clinton
administration...
And only because of the upturn in the world economy for nearly a decade
did
the amount of money the government was extorting from businesses and stock
holders statistically put us in a predicted surplus *** if the rate of
increase in government revenues continued for the forseeable future*** -

Further, his tax and regulatory policies are a major factor in delaying
recovery (like lead weights on a swimmer trying to reach shore).

Also, the economic downturn actually had it's roots in Greenspan's putting
the brakes on the economy in 1998. Not Clinton's fault there, but again, his
regulatory climate greatly impeded recovery and the shaking off of
malinvestment. It was about this time that the job market started to go to
hell, albeit slowly.

The stock markets peaked in March, 2000, and now economists are revising
their "call" of the beginning of the recession to mid-2000. So just how long
does anyone think it take a recession to take hold?


jeez, how gullible do you have to be?

The more the better. :~)

And, yes, Paul Krugman, the leading Marxist/Keynesian economist, was wrong
on just about every estimate/prediction he made during those years.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/chronicle.asp

And, the Clinton administration was not all bad - our zipper boy is a
centrist and understands that the business community could not be
crucified
to support the party line, and still provide jobs and bennies for all
those
gullible, democratic voters... I agree with significant parts of the
business oriented bills he signed into law...

NAFTA was a good idea in theory, but a disaster in implementation. It does
not take 15,000 pages of regulations to implement open trade and free
markets.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
Oh, another piece of common knowledge, I suppose...

(Note the smiley)

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message Incidently, you
aren't
rich; they don't pay taxes. :-)

I wish we were rich so we didn't have to pay the massive sums my spouse and
I did these past several years. :~o


--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:43:14 -0500, "Dennis O'Connor"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Awwwright, now I'm mad, Larry... First, I voted for the Libertarian
candidate for President, not either of the two big spenders...

Please accept my sincere apology for my presumption. I have a lot of
respect for those who choose not to squander their votes on
perpetuating the corrupt incumbent fiscal system.

My sense is that the big players in the three branches of government, and
the industrial military complex, saw an impending oil crises down the road
if we did not do something to change the power structure in arabia
(specifically Saudi Arabia)... The Clinton administration understood this
but the big guy chose not to rock the boat whilst he was busily avoiding
being impeached...

Perhaps development of alternate energy sources would be a more
appropriate means of averting the inevitable oil crisis.

Next, Clinton did not hand anyone a zero deficit... Those numbers were
political cookery right from the start...

So you concede that the numbers showed what I contend.

The country was in deficit every
minute of the way, before, during, and after, the Clinton administration...
And only because of the upturn in the world economy for nearly a decade did
the amount of money the government was extorting from businesses and stock
holders statistically put us in a predicted surplus

It's difficult to see how the country was in creating a financial
deficit while surpluses were accumulating.

*** if the rate of
increase in government revenues continued for the forseeable future*** -
jeez, how gullible do you have to be?

I don't pretend to be an expert, let alone knowledgable, in these
issues.