Is Bush doomed?

"Gene Storey" wrote in message news:mkuOb.544$ce2.195@okepread03...
"Jos.Carman" wrote

GWB a loser? Are you serious? I guess you do watch a lot of
television.

Loser = Credit Card Fanatic (GWB has no regard for either the
deficit, the debt, or the balance of trade. His policies are
to charge it).

According to a former cabinet member, he is "like a blind man
in room full of deaf people."

That's another definition of a loser.

Carman wrote:
Definately too much television!

"Kent Finnell" wrote

People on Social Security are not being paid to NOT work. They are being
paid for having worked in the past.

Tell that to all the kids under 18 who are on Social Security.

Social Security is welfare by any other name. It's a safety net for people who
don't or won't plan for their own retirement. If you start collecting at age 65,
then by age 69 you will have consumed everything you paid in. After 69 is free
money from the socialists. Those who live to be 80 and 90 are ripping us all
off.

People who don't work should be sent to a barracks, housed 100 to a bay,
and get their meals on picnic benches in a tent.

"Kent Finnell" wrote in message ...
"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:HoAOb.570$ce2.342@okepread03...
"Kent Finnell" wrote
"Gene Storey" wrote
"Jos.Carman" wrote

GWB a loser? Are you serious? I guess you do watch a lot of
television.

Loser = Credit Card Fanatic (GWB has no regard for either the
deficit, the debt, or the balance of trade. His policies are to
charge
it).

Wars cost money? Want to cut and run because the deficit rises? It is
still small when compared to the GNP.

The GNP is computed using the same auditors as Enron used.

Bull****. Looks good on a bumper sticker, but is not the truth. Arthur
Andersen is no longer a player and never computed the GNP.


Wars cost money, but that's not where the revenue is going. We have
so many nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and reserve officers on
active duty, that a pit has become ops-normal.

I don't believe that we're building nukes anymore, Gene. Exactly what kind
of chemical weapons do you think we're making? Are you willing to use
them? When? Where?

If we would move the retirement age to 89, we would cut the deficit
to zero in just a few years. War or no war.

It's bad policy to pay people not to work.

Well, let me guess. You're most probably under 50 and have a job.

People on Social Security are not being paid to NOT work. They are being
paid for having worked in the past.

No they are paid for not having murdered all the politicans and started
a revolution and for not voting candidates who support SS out of office.
That's all you need to do to get SS.

Many are unable to work any longer and
others, because of their age, cannot find work.

Gene, you're a cynical fool.


--
From the Music City, USA ... Kent Finnell

"A gun is like a rattlesnake. You can try to keep it in a cage,
but sooner or later it's going to get out and hurt someone."

Julie Wheeler, spokeswoman for the anti-gun group
Ceasefire Oregon, somehow equating a tool made of
metal and wood with a venomous reptile.

Zippy the Pinhead wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:30 GMT, "Gorf" wrote:

So did his father at this time of the election . I think Bush SR had 70%
approval and still lost. To be fair I have to mention that Bush SR had Perot
to deal with.

Not only that, but back then this country still had its head so far up
its ass that it thought the job in the Middle East was done, and
clinton was promising his retinue of whimpering victim groups a share
of the "peace dividend".

What job was that? The job of giving Halliburton free money? The job
of setting up puppet governments to oppose Iran?

Just an educated guess.. just like the liberals who point out that Gore
would have probably won if Nader had not run. BTW I think they are
right....Bush SR disenfranchised a lot of conservatives with his "read my
lips no new taxes" pledge and turned around and voted for the Dems tax
package. What gets me is the Dems attacks on the so-called "conservative"
Bush clan. They are not as conservative as they would like you to believe.
Most aristocrats aren't.

"Steve Krulick" wrote in message
...
Morton Davis wrote:

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:30 GMT, "Gorf" wrote:

So did his father at this time of the election . I think Bush SR had
70%
approval and still lost. To be fair I have to mention that Bush SR
had
Perot
to deal with.

Not only that, but back then this country still had its head so far up
its ass that it thought the job in the Middle East was done, and
clinton was promising his retinue of whimpering victim groups a share
of the "peace dividend".

Perot carried my county. Clinto "won" because of Perot.

The numbers don't bear that out. Care to cite REAL figures that
show that, BrainDead?

CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-*MORT*-
BrainDead, and slave to urban legends.

--
Steven Krulick /
Ellenville NY 12428-130727

"Gene Storey" wrote in message
news:ITDOb.584$ce2.516@okepread03...
"Kent Finnell" wrote

People on Social Security are not being paid to NOT work. They are
being
paid for having worked in the past.

Tell that to all the kids under 18 who are on Social Security.

Kids under 18 are not collecting Social Security, they are collecting
survivors' benefits because their working mom and/or dad has died.
Generally the money goes to a legal guardian who must make an accounting of
all money spent on behalf of the minor(s). I'm familiar with the this
provision of the law because I have a friend who lost her husband. Their 2
daughters will receive checks until 18. They are currently 16 and 9. Since
the woman works, she won't collect on her husband's account when she
retires. He was a male psych nurse. You may have met him if you were ever
committed in Nashville. You have a problem with that, asshole?


Social Security is welfare by any other name. It's a safety net for
people who
don't or won't plan for their own retirement. If you start collecting at
age 65,
then by age 69 you will have consumed everything you paid in. After 69 is
free
money from the socialists. Those who live to be 80 and 90 are ripping us
all
off.

You're mathmatically challenged as well as being a total jerk, Gene. Whether
or not one plans their retirement or not, at age 62 (partial benefits) or
65, one is eligible to receive benefits since the money was extracted from
both the employee and the employer by the government. One would be a fool
like you not to draw those benefits.

Want to do a little math here? Let us assume that the work life is 45
years, at an average of $30k per year. Total taxable wages $ 1,350,000 at
12.8% (both halves) equals $ 172,800. Drawing an estimated $ 1,500 per
month, the account wouldn't run out for 115 months or almost 10 years.

People who don't work should be sent to a barracks, housed 100 to a bay,
and get their meals on picnic benches in a tent.

You're a compassionate *******, aren't you?

May I recommend decaf, a good mantra, and professional help to deal with
your irrational hatreds?


--
Kent Finnell, From Music City, USA

If a person who indulges in gluttony is a glutton,
and a person who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron.
-- Spider Robinson

"michael price" wrote in message
om...
Zippy the Pinhead wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:30 GMT, "Gorf" wrote:

So did his father at this time of the election . I think Bush SR had
70%
approval and still lost. To be fair I have to mention that Bush SR had
Perot
to deal with.

Not only that, but back then this country still had its head so far up
its ass that it thought the job in the Middle East was done, and
clinton was promising his retinue of whimpering victim groups a share
of the "peace dividend".

What job was that? The job of giving Halliburton free money? The job
of setting up puppet governments to oppose Iran?

Do you really believe this nonsense? How did Bush have any say in the
choice of Halliburton? Answer - he didn't.

And if he is setting up puppet governments, well more power to him , though
frankly I don't think it is necessary. The US could take care of Iran
without help if it came to that.

Jarg

In us.military.army Gene Storey wrote:

It would be funny if you weren't serious. Why do you think
they call it the B-2 Nuclear Bomber, or the Minuteman
Nuclear missile? What do you think the Submarines are
carrying? Nukes. And each nuke costs the same as an
F-15E to keep on alert and maintain.

Goodness knows, I would have thought you death-hungry folks had enough nukes
already.


--
.................................................. ............................

"What sort of truth is it that needs protection?"

-Auberon Waugh, The London Daily Telegraph

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

In us.military.army Gene Storey wrote:

People who don't work should be sent to a barracks, housed 100 to a bay,
and get their meals on picnic benches in a tent.

I think that's an excellent idea. Americans who are no longer of use to
the miltiary-industrial complex should not detract from the war effort.

Perhaps they contribute to the manufacture of SoyLent Green, to help feed
the troops on the front lines.


--
.................................................. ............................

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of
tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of
tyranny a good conscience.

- Albert Camus

.................................................. ............................
http://www.memeticcandiru.com

Gorf wrote:

Just an educated guess..

No, just bad logic and no evidence. The numbers I remember
seeing showed that under any measure, Clinton would have won,
certainly the Electoral vote. But then, it's not up to ME to
disprove HIS claim.

just like the liberals who point out that Gore
would have probably won if Nader had not run.

Except that *I* have been posting evidence for years that THAT
is simply wishful thinking and sour grapes and scapegoating, and
that the exit polls and other numbers show that without Nader in
the race, BUSH would have won by a full percentage point! I'll
be happy to post this if desired. Let the Dems explain away the
10-20% (depending on state) of DEMS who voted FOR BUSH! THAT
more than swamps any impact Nader supporters had; indeed
millions of Nader supporters switched to Gore at the last
minute, INSURING that Gore DID win Florida AND the nation!
Thanks, ingrates!

BTW I think they are
right....Bush SR disenfranchised a lot of conservatives with his "read my
lips no new taxes" pledge and turned around and voted for the Dems tax
package. What gets me is the Dems attacks on the so-called "conservative"
Bush clan. They are not as conservative as they would like you to believe.
Most aristocrats aren't.

Not Bush senior; he was a go-along centrist hack!

And Bush junior is a brainless sock-puppet; but the gang behind
him are ultra-fascists criminals.

"Steve Krulick" wrote in message
...
Morton Davis wrote:

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 10:04:30 GMT, "Gorf" wrote:

So did his father at this time of the election . I think Bush SR had
70%
approval and still lost. To be fair I have to mention that Bush SR
had
Perot
to deal with.

Not only that, but back then this country still had its head so far up
its ass that it thought the job in the Middle East was done, and
clinton was promising his retinue of whimpering victim groups a share
of the "peace dividend".

Perot carried my county. Clinto "won" because of Perot.

The numbers don't bear that out. Care to cite REAL figures that
show that, BrainDead?

CITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-*MORT*-
BrainDead, and slave to urban legends.

--
Steven Krulick /
Ellenville NY 12428-130727