 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / March 2007Interesting perspective on Gore vs Bush
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election: Number of States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29 Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000 Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1 "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..." Imagine that. Lee ________________________________ It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954 > Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , > Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Imagine that. And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. > And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. So, you're finally coming around to my point of view that we should have just nuked them to start with? >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our >> troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. > > So, you're finally coming around to my point of view that we should have > just nuked them to start with? and you Americans wonder why people park planes in your buildings > and you Americans wonder why people park planes in your buildings Well, as they say, it couldn't have happened to a nicer town... Of course, if it would have happened to Brooklyn or New Jersey, no one would have even noticed... > >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and you Americans wonder why people park planes in your buildings We don';t wonder that - we know why. They hate Us, they hate the US. they hate our freedoms, they hate democracy, they hate our "decadent culture", they havte that women here are treated as equals. Haven't you been paying attention? Just look at the fatwas. Dennis >> >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's >> >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > as > equals. they hate that US forign policy has been screwing them around for ages > Haven't you been paying attention? > Just look at the fatwas. > > Dennis >>> >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's >>> >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> Dennis I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. I apologise for getting involved in OT discussions > I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy and > gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. If you can find something that hasn't been discussed to death around here, feel free to bring it up... Politics and 2nd Amendment rights are what we fall back on when we can't find any new diving related topics to discuss... > I apologise for getting involved in OT discussions Don't worry, we'll lure you into another one soon enough... <evil-grin> So, what's the going price on a Nikon D200 body over there? >> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >> and >> gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. > > If you can find something that hasn't been discussed to death around > here, feel free to bring it up... What about PADI Vs NAUI Vs DIR, Benefits of split fins, Don't dive alone it will kill you, :-) > What about PADI Vs NAUI Vs DIR, Benefits of split fins, Don't dive alone it > will kill you, I believe that it is generally accepted that being a DIR PADI diver with split fins is basically a death sentence... > > What about PADI Vs NAUI Vs DIR, Benefits of split fins, Don't dive alone it > > will kill you, > > I believe that it is generally accepted that being a DIR PADI diver > with split fins is basically a death sentence... Only when diving solo. ;-) Dennis > I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy and > gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. > > I apologise for getting involved in OT discussions You mean after insulting our culture and way of life, making false claims about our Constitution, and exaggerating like hell about how "dangerous" we are? Not to mention implying we deserved to be targeted by terrorists. Has anyone told you to f.ck go yourself yet? Curtis >> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "dangerous" we are? Not to mention implying we deserved to be targeted by > terrorists. Has anyone told you to f.ck go yourself yet? Poor Curtis did I upset you, I am so sorry. Now sit down and take a deep breathe. sh.t what a dumb septic > Poor Curtis did I upset you, I am so sorry. Now sit down and take a deep > breathe. <snicker> Advanced Syphilis from sheep husbandry getting to you? <plonk> >> Poor Curtis did I upset you, I am so sorry. Now sit down and take a deep >> breathe. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > <plonk> thank god > sh.t what a dumb septic A quick search with Google Groups appears to show that Curtis is right and I didn't give you the typical new member greeting... For this, I apologize and would like to make up for it now... http://grumman581.googlepages.com/welcome-rec-scuba <pppphhhhhllllltttt> >> sh.t what a dumb septic > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > <pppphhhhhllllltttt> thankyou I now feel like a full member of the group > thankyou I now feel like a full member of the group You're welcome... I tried to find an animated cartoon gif of someone shagging a sheep so that I could properly welcome you Aussies to the group, but I couldn't find one on the net... With as much weird stuff out there, I'm surprise that someone hasn't created one yet... Oh well, on the other hand, I did come across this joke: http://isitbeertimeyet.ca/2006/sheep-shagging/ >> thankyou I now feel like a full member of the group > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://isitbeertimeyet.ca/2006/sheep-shagging/ posted on another ng With the Subject of "Dating Service for Kiwis" not animated but not bad http://www.adultsheepfinder.com:80/ > A quick search with Google Groups appears to show that Curtis is right and > I didn't give you the typical new member greeting... For this, I apologize > and would like to make up for it now... Then it's an honor to be the first to tell him. Some of y'all should be ashamed I beat you to it. Curtis > Then it's an honor to be the first to tell him. > > Some of y'all should be ashamed I beat you to it. A quick google search shows him on rec.scuba since at least 4/4/2002... I don't believe that I was sending out the welcome-rec-scuba links at that time... Turns out that... On 6/3/2004, Scott told him, "f.ck you, punk" On 2/7/2007, Scott told him, "Are you f.cking stupid, blind or just an a.shole?" On 3/3/2003, Popeye told him, "What a hypocritical ignorant fuckwit you are." On 4/4/2003, Airhob said, "What an a.s" Considering some of his comments, I'm sure there are more... >> Then it's an honor to be the first to tell him. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Considering some of his comments, I'm sure there are more... Is that all you could find!!!! Keep looking > Is that all you could find!!!! Keep looking Nawh, I got bored fairly quickly... I didn't even bother to check the cricket newsgroup to which you posted... Surely someone over there had told you to go bugger yourself, right? >> Is that all you could find!!!! Keep looking > > Nawh, I got bored fairly quickly... I didn't even bother to check the > cricket newsgroup to which you posted... Surely someone over there had > told you to go bugger yourself, right? check rsru as well see what the kiwis have to say about me > On 4/4/2003, Airhob said, "What an a.s" Correction... "Airhog" said it... Fumble fingers strikes again... >> Some of y'all should be ashamed I beat you to it. > > A quick google search shows him on rec.scuba since at least 4/4/2002... I > don't believe that I was sending out the welcome-rec-scuba links at that > time... Really a mute point anyways, I wasn't giving him a friendly greeting to the newsgroup. Doesn't surprise me though that if he's been crawling around that long, that Doug & Scott already pegged him. Funny, I never noticed him until recently, guess I won't miss him now either. Curtis > >> Some of y'all should be ashamed I beat you to it. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Really a mute point anyways, Just how mute was it? :-) >> Then it's an honor to be the first to tell him. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Considering some of his comments, I'm sure there are more... I was just gonna say- he's not new here... Kinda like athlete's foot, a minor irritation that won't quite go away. :-) Not as bad as a herpes class nisrael or jANUS. >>> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >>> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > sh.t what a dumb septic I notice that you didn't deny the fact that he was correct. If anyone's a septic here, it isn't us. Have you ever been to Canada? >>>> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >>>> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Have you ever been to Canada? Certainly have lovely country. But they are not septics Americans are >>>>>I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >>>>>and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Certainly have lovely country. But they are not septics Americans are How long have you hated Americans, and have you tried professional help for it?  Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” --Theodore Roosevelt...1907 ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > How long have you hated Americans, and have you tried professional help > for it? Probably since he discovered we were a rebellious colony, and his was a penal colony. Curtis >> How long have you hated Americans, and have you tried professional help >> for it? > > Probably since he discovered we were a rebellious colony, and his was a > penal colony. Interestingly the British also sent convicts to the American colonies and Aus has your revolution to thank for the British settling in Australia. The reason that Australia was settled was because the American revolution meant the British had to find another place to dump their convicts >>>How long have you hated Americans, and have you tried professional help >>>for it? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > reason that Australia was settled was because the American revolution meant > the British had to find another place to dump their convicts maybe the difference is the American Revolution >>> Probably since he discovered we were a rebellious colony, and his was >>> a penal colony. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> meant the British had to find another place to dump their convicts > maybe the difference is the American Revolution Naw, it's just him squirming to my cheap potshot at him. He's just trying to counter, and show how superior he thinks he is. You really wanna argue our history with a guy who admitted his version is so flawed he believes the liberal's revision on the Second Amendment? Just another mouthy foreigner, made a lousy toy, y'all oughtta consider ignoring his silly a.s. I'd soon forget he existed if not for his tripe being quoted. >>>>>>I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >>>>>>and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > How long have you hated Americans, and have you tried professional help > for it? Don't mind American, mostly great people. Met some very nice ones on my trips to the States and have a couple of septic mates over here. >> sh.t what a dumb septic > > I notice that you didn't deny the fact that he was correct. :-) >>> sh.t what a dumb septic >> >> I notice that you didn't deny the fact that he was correct. > > :-) Very funny. :-) > >> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy > >> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > sh.t what a dumb septic So much for the apologiy about OT discussions :-) Welcome back. Dennis >> >> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy >> >> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Welcome back. I know, I know I'm sorry but the temptation was to great > Dennis > >> I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy > >> and gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > sh.t what a dumb septic You think so? What exactly did he say that was wrong? > Has anyone told you to f.ck go yourself yet? Surely I posted that link when he first came to the group, right? > >>> >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > >>> >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I should add that this isn't really the forum to discuss US O/S policy and > gun laws so I may go back to discussing diving. Cool. > I apologise for getting involved in OT discussions No need to apoligize. Its not like this hasn't been discussed here before. Dennis >>>>>And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's >>>>>already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > they hate that US forign policy has been screwing them around for ages They've screwed themselves around for ages. We have either not helped them out of their particular issues, or at worst helped someone else (who they usually don't like). All the foreign aid in the world isn't going to help the mideast. They have to help themselves But their issues with the US go farther than foreign policy. Mostly it is a clash of culture. It's fear by the Mullahs that they will lose influence and power. >>Haven't you been paying attention? >>Just look at the fatwas. >> >>Dennis Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ Something to think about, from a wise man now long dead….: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. “There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” --Theodore Roosevelt...1907 ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > they hate that US forign policy has been screwing them around for ages Tired old noise. They hate us because they're religious bigots. If they hate only us, and, because of our policies, why do they attack every one else? You just repeat common tripe, indicating a non-thinker. > >> >> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > >> >> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > they hate that US forign policy has been screwing them around for ages Buying their oil pisses them off? Yeah, being an ally of Israel might annoy 'em. Think we should just abandon 'em? Think that if we do, they'll leave us alone? :-) :-) Dennis >>> And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's >>> already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > and you Americans wonder why people park planes in your buildings We don't wonder why at all. > and you Americans wonder why people park planes in your buildings Awh, 'ell... Have you tried finding a parking spot for a plane on the ground around there? <sick-grin> > And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. Imagine what it would have been under Gore. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. The Dow certainly has dropped since the Democrats took over Congress, but it's still about 2000 points above where Clinton left it. And the drop today was because China once again f.cked us as provided for in the Clinton Chinese Giveaway treaty. The CCG treaty will haunt us for another fifty years, regardless who's in the White House - when China sneezes, we get pneumonia - so get used to it. Unless yer willing to go to war to win back our economic sovereignty. > Imagine what it would have been under Gore. Why would Gore have invaded Iraq? > The Dow certainly has dropped since the Democrats took over Congress, > but it's still about 2000 points above where Clinton left it. Clinton took it from 4,000 to almost 12,000, leaving it at 250% of where he found it. Bush has increased it by 30% so far, but how long he can sustain even that meager increase remains to be seen. Hopefully Greenspan is wrong. > And the drop today was because China once again f.cked us as provided > for in the Clinton Chinese Giveaway treaty. The CCG treaty will haunt us > for another fifty years, regardless who's in the White House - when > China sneezes, we get pneumonia - so get used to it. Unless yer willing > to go to war to win back our economic sovereignty. And here I thought China was Nixon's fault. >>Imagine what it would have been under Gore. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Clinton took it from 4,000 to almost 12,000, leaving it at 250% of > where he found it. HUGE MARKET HIT In MID MARCH 2000 - a full 8 months before Bush was elected so under Clinton a big dive - we are now just recovering from that Clinton fiasco Bush has increased it by 30% so far, but how long > he can sustain even that meager increase remains to be seen. > Hopefully Greenspan is wrong. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And here I thought China was Nixon's fault. > > Clinton took it from 4,000 to almost 12,000, leaving it at 250% of > > where he found it. > > HUGE MARKET HIT In MID MARCH 2000 - a full 8 months before Bush was > elected so under Clinton a big dive - we are now just recovering from > that Clinton fiasco Like I said, Clinton left it near 10,000, 250% of what he started with. Bush has managed to creep it up another 30%, even after he started a war to boost the economy. > > Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , > > Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. See what happens when the Democrats take back Congress? :-) Dennis >> Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , >> Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. Lee is worried that Gore will run again. The evidence is Lee's preemptive strike. >> Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , >> Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Imagine that. > And Bush managed to get us in a never-ending war in Iraq that's > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. Bush ain't the first to get us into a never ending war, and he probably won't be the last. Consuming hundreds of billions of dollars is good for the economy, always has been. We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. Today, the Democrats are in control of both houses. You got what you voted for. Lee > >> Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , > >> Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Lee Speaking of which, does anyone have any more details about this: http://www.grassfire.org/142/petition.asp ? > Bush ain't the first to get us into a never ending war, and he probably > won't be the last. Some people learned a lesson from Vietnam. Since Bush was AWOL then, he apparently missed out on the education. > Consuming hundreds of billions of dollars is good for the economy, always > has been. We're not consuming it, the Iraqis are. It would probably do some good if we spent it here instead. > We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it > easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. Is there any ill of the world you don't blame on illegals? What did they ever do to you, other than pick your strawberries? Did you get pushed out of job cleaning homes or washing dishes? Too bad we don't have those hundreds of billions of dollars or we could pay them to go away and leave you alone. > Today, the Democrats are in control of both houses. You got what you voted > for. Not until our troops are home safe. We're working on that. And Bush can still veto any meaningful legislation. We're working on that too. >>Bush ain't the first to get us into a never ending war, and he probably >>won't be the last. > > Some people learned a lesson from Vietnam. Since Bush was AWOL then, got a verifiable cite for that? > he apparently missed out on the education. so what is Kerry;s excuse for missing out on an education? Busy earning medals or throwing them in the river? Or busy self-inflicting himself to claim the medals >>Consuming hundreds of billions of dollars is good for the economy, always >>has been. > > We're not consuming it, the Iraqis are. It would probably do some > good if we spent it here instead. MUch is spending right here >>We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it >>easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have those hundreds of billions of dollars or we could pay them to go > away and leave you alone. Many white collar professionals lost jobs to India, I would blame it on liberals - certainly our elected officials and the president at the time >>Today, the Democrats are in control of both houses. You got what you voted >>for. > > Not until our troops are home safe. We're working on that. And Bush > can still veto any meaningful legislation. We're working on that too. >>We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it >>easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. > Is there any ill of the world you don't blame on illegals? What did > they ever do to you, other than pick your strawberries? Did you get > pushed out of job cleaning homes or washing dishes? Too bad we don't > have those hundreds of billions of dollars or we could pay them to go > away and leave you alone. I didn't blame anything on illegals. I blame the liberals that keep the law from being enforced and pointed out that war is one of the ways the world controls its population. Along with pestilence and plague, it always has been. >>Today, the Democrats are in control of both houses. You got what you >>voted >>for. > Not until our troops are home safe. We're working on that. And Bush > can still veto any meaningful legislation. We're working on that too. And the liberals can still over ride his veto. I notice you changed the subject rather quickly. Not doing real well in the last few days are we? First a liberal gun grabber provides detailed statistics to confirm that there were substantially more murders in areas that supported Gore than supported Bush and now the economy, under a House and Senate firmly controlled by Democrats has crashed and burned. You guys just can't win for losing. Lee > >>We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it > >>easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. > I didn't blame anything on illegals. I blame the liberals that keep the law > from being enforced and pointed out that war is one of the ways the world > controls its population. Along with pestilence and plague, it always has > been. So 3,100 soldiers in exchange for 20,000,000 illegals picking our strawberries. If you feel that's a fair trade-off, but I think it's a bit unbalanced. On the other hand, the state of Florida has about 16,000,000. That's a much closer number. We could either cut off the dangly part, or just trade the whole mosquito-infested swamp to Cuba for a lifetime supply of Cohibas. > And the liberals can still over ride his veto. Did you know that they need a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress in order to override the President's veto? That's something you should have learned back in school, but I'd blame the illegals for your failing to be properly educated. Do you believe there is a 2/3 majority of liberals in Congress? I wish. Then we could actually accomplish something. Instead we'll have to wait until after the 2008 elections. > So 3,100 soldiers in exchange for 20,000,000 illegals picking our > strawberries. If you feel that's a fair trade-off, but I think it's a > bit unbalanced. Me too, but I just can't get the liberals to listen. Here's a thought, let's send all 20 million of them Iraq. Dealing with the rush just might keep everyone there busy enough to calm things down for a while. > On the other hand, the state of Florida has about 16,000,000. That's a > much closer number. We could either cut off the > dangly part, or just trade the whole mosquito-infested swamp to Cuba for a > lifetime supply of Cohibas. Very few Cubans are illegal immigrants. The law of the land says, one foot on dry land and they're here legally. I don't agree with the special treatment, but at least they have the law on their side. Frankly, I'm in favor of immigration laws that make it easier for people from other countries to become citizens of the US. Where you and I differ most is that I want the laws enforced and fixed and you don't seem to simply want to ignore them. I want all citizens to have rights and protection of the law and you're happy with having 20 million people abused by those that prefer to pay an illegal a lower than market wage rather than comply with what they know the law is. > Did you know that they need a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress > in order to override the President's veto? Yes, I know that. If it's so important, you'll get it. Did you know that every time something comes up, some Republicans cross party lines, voting for what they believe is right instead of what is most convenient for the President? You should have learned that in school too. > That's something you should have learned back in school, but I'd blame the > illegals for your failing to be properly educated. Not a problem for my education. Probably is a problem now. Portables used to be a temporary fix to an increase in school age residents. Now they're a permanent fixture. Teacher to student ratios are way over ideal. Hell, it's almost like PADI was in charge of the country's education system. > Do you believe there is a 2/3 majority of liberals in Congress? I regularly thank God there isn't. > I wish. Then we could actually accomplish something. You did a pretty good job on the economy since the congressional elections. How much more do you want to do? Lee > >>We had to do something to reduce the population after the liberals made it > >>easy for 20 million illegals to make themselves at home at our expense. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Lee Not to be a dick or anything, but I would hardly call what happened recently in the economy "crashing and burning". Also, I'm pretty sure that they had about as much to do with it as Bush had to do with the decline he inherited from the Clinton administration. > Not to be a dick or anything, but I would hardly call what happened > recently in the economy > "crashing and burning". That doesn't matter. We now to use the same tactics the Dems have the last 6 years. It's a f.cking miracle any of us could cash our paychecks this week. Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied Pelosi Lied > Also, I'm pretty sure that they had about as much to do with it as Bush > had to do with the decline > he inherited from the Clinton administration. I'm not sure how we could afford the war. > > Not to be a dick or anything, but I would hardly call what happened > > recently in the economy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > We now to use the same tactics the Dems have the last 6 years. I know what's happening and I understand the reasoning behind it. I also hate that we stoop to this level. > got a verifiable cite for that? Bush being AWOL? It's hard to prove he wasn't there, since he claimed he was always off hiding somewhere where no one saw him and he's always had access to the best resources to cover up his mistakes, which is how he got out of going to Vietnam in the first place. It sure helps to have a father who heads the CIA. But he's never been able to demonstrate he did serve and plenty of reputable people swore they never saw him, even though it's likely they'd remember having met the president back when. > so what is Kerry;s excuse for missing out on an education? Busy earning > medals or throwing them in the river? Or busy self-inflicting himself > to claim the medals He went, he fought, he protested. He certainly earned the right to protest. If you think Kerry deliberately wounded himself, you must think all friendly fire is deliberate as well. Are you one of those conspiracy theorists who believe we targeted Pat Tillman for assassination? > > We're not consuming it, the Iraqis are. It would probably do some > > good if we spent it here instead. > > MUch is spending right here Whatever that string of words is supposed to mean. Do you have any relatives from Chuuk? Sometimes you sound so much the same, it's eerie. > > Is there any ill of the world you don't blame on illegals? What did > > they ever do to you, other than pick your strawberries? Did you get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Many white collar professionals lost jobs to India, I would blame it on > liberals - certainly our elected officials and the president at the time So you think all those Indians in India are illegal immigrants? No wonder why Lee is so worried, heck there's hundreds of millions of them and we're not stopping them. On the other hand, if Indians could pick strawberries . . . > On the other hand, if Indians could pick strawberries . . . You like your stawberries with a curry flavor to them? > Bush being AWOL? It's hard to prove he wasn't there, since he claimed > he was always off hiding somewhere where no one saw him and he's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > they never saw him, even though it's likely they'd remember having met > the president back when. A Clinton worshipper bashing Bush's "service" during Vietnam? Too funny. BTW, what kind of jet aircraft was Billy Bylthe ever qualified to fly? None, at all? Is that because he's too stupid or frightened? Perhaps both? -- SJM > > Bush being AWOL? It's hard to prove he wasn't there, since he claimed > > he was always off hiding somewhere where no one saw him and he's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > A Clinton worshipper bashing Bush's "service" during Vietnam? That's true. Hillary didn't serve in Vietnam either. But Joe wasn't questioning her service. >>>Bush being AWOL? It's hard to prove he wasn't there, since he claimed >>>he was always off hiding somewhere where no one saw him and he's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's true. Hillary didn't serve in Vietnam either. But Joe wasn't > questioning her service. nor would I - her service as first lady (lady doesn't quite fit her) is enough proof she doesn't now or ever belong in the white house again > nor would I - her service as first lady (lady doesn't quite fit her) is > enough proof she doesn't now or ever belong in the white house again- Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" as first lady? > Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" > as first lady? She didn't "service" Billy Boy enough to keep him from boinking the hired help? >Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" >as first lady? Her utter cluelessness about sexual matters where Bill was concerned. Yeah, yeah, maybe trust and a loving, forgiving relationship may be important in a marriage and all, but it is rarely a qualification for political office. Then there was her "health care" push. Aside from any merits or demerits of the scheme, there was the sheer audacity of an (unelected) relative of an elected official proposing official government policy. You kind of have to wonder why she did it. -- Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net Illiterate? Write for FREE help > >Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" > >as first lady? > > Her utter cluelessness about sexual matters where Bill was concerned. Cluelessness? > Yeah, yeah, maybe trust and a loving, forgiving relationship may be > important in a marriage and all, but it is rarely a qualification for > political office. I was asking how her behavior disqualified her. You're saying that because she was in a trusting and loving and forgiving relationship that she's unqualified to be president? That's wacky. > Then there was her "health care" push. Aside from > any merits or demerits of the scheme, there was the sheer audacity of > an (unelected) relative of an elected official proposing official > government policy. You kind of have to wonder why she did it. Probably she wanted to follow in Eleanor Roosevelt's footsteps and do great things for our country, not just sit at home and bake cookies. Presidents have to be audacious. In my book, she can only be admired for trying to help people meet basic health care needs. It's not as if her crusade were an evil one, like many of the Bush Administration's maneuvers that have the opposite effect of her good deed. >I was asking how her behavior disqualified her. You're saying that >because she was in a trusting and loving and forgiving relationship >that she's unqualified to be president? That's wacky. Not at all. There are few, very few, successful husband and wife teams in much of anything, certainly very few in politics. I'm not saying that because she is in a forgiving, etc. relationship that she is unqualified, I'm saying that because she allowed herself to be blinded is the disqualification. >Probably she wanted to follow in Eleanor Roosevelt's footsteps and do >great things for our country, not just sit at home and bake cookies. There are probably a whole lot of women who want to do that. >Presidents have to be audacious. In my book, she can only be admired >for trying to help people meet basic health care needs. It's not as >if her crusade were an evil one, like many of the Bush >Administration's maneuvers that have the opposite effect of her good >deed. Whether you're a Clinton hater or a Bush hater, you've got to look at the whole relationship between George Herbert Walker Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Hillary Clinton and just kind of shake your head. It makes you yearn for Pat Paulson. -- Galen Hekhuis ghekhuis@earthlink.net Illiterate? Write for FREE help > >I was asking how her behavior disqualified her. You're saying that > >because she was in a trusting and loving and forgiving relationship [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is unqualified, I'm saying that because she allowed herself to be > blinded is the disqualification. I doubt she allowed herself to be blinded. I do believe she intentionally looked the other way. Any other reaction would have been bad for the country, but I'd wager that they had words in private about the subject. What would you have had her do? Any overt move would have caused a scandal. > >Probably she wanted to follow in Eleanor Roosevelt's footsteps and do > >great things for our country, not just sit at home and bake cookies. > > There are probably a whole lot of women who want to do that. But not a whole lot of women live in the White House and have the ear of the President. She took advantage of her assets like any woman should. >I doubt she allowed herself to be blinded. I do believe she >intentionally looked the other way. I don't see that there is a significant difference there, but either way, she allowed herself to trust someone who proved untrustworthy. Having been fooled by one so close isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, even if forgiveness was involved. >Any other reaction would have >been bad for the country, but I'd wager that they had words in private >about the subject. > >What would you have had her do? Any overt move would have caused a >scandal. Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? >But not a whole lot of women live in the White House and have the ear >of the President. She took advantage of her assets like any woman >should. Perhaps you think the achievements or detrimental acts of one spouse should reflect upon the other? In some cases that's true, but I doubt it should be assumed. > Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? It might have been. >>Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? > > It might have been. like what, she was doing Janet Reno? >>>Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? >> >> It might have been. >> > like what, she was doing Janet Reno? <gakk> >>>> Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > <gakk> ??? gakkk hilary or gakkk janet? :-) >>>>> Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > or > gakkk janet? Janet is proof of extra-terrestrial like, but, the thought of them doing eachother. >>>>>> Are you suggesting that a (worse) scandal was avoided? >>>>> It might have been. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Janet is proof of extra-terrestrial like, > but, the thought of them doing each other. but they deserve each other. >>>I was asking how her behavior disqualified her. You're saying that >>>because she was in a trusting and loving and forgiving relationship [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I doubt she allowed herself to be blinded. I do believe she > intentionally looked the other way. Which bodes bad for her sitting as the head of this country Any other reaction would have > been bad for the country, but I'd wager that they had words in private > about the subject. Bad for the country but good for her political future - very very bad for this country - we don't need her > What would you have had her do? Go back to Arkansas Any overt move would have caused a > scandal. There was a scandal - and it looked very bad - (it still does) >>>Probably she wanted to follow in Eleanor Roosevelt's footsteps and do >>>great things for our country, not just sit at home and bake cookies. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the President. She took advantage of her assets like any woman > should. >>>Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" >>>as first lady? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Probably she wanted to follow in Eleanor Roosevelt's footsteps and do > great things for our country, not just sit at home and bake cookies. Maybe she should have sat home and had nooky and not bake cookies > Presidents have to be audacious. In my book, she can only be admired > for trying to help people meet basic health care needs. It's not as > if her crusade were an evil one, like many of the Bush > Administration's maneuvers that have the opposite effect of her good > deed. >>nor would I - her service as first lady (lady doesn't quite fit her) is >>enough proof she doesn't now or ever belong in the white house again- > > Really? What is it that you felt she did wrong during her "service" > as first lady? Travelgate for starters Married to a scumbag like Bill next Staying married to Bill next - (only for her on political gain) She and Bill or both liars and manipulators >> > Bush being AWOL? It's hard to prove he wasn't there, since he claimed >> > he was always off hiding somewhere where no one saw him and he's [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > That's true. Hillary didn't serve in Vietnam either. But Joe wasn't > questioning her service. She hasn't announced yet. I'm sure it will become an issue. Sauce for the goose... Kerry started all that sh.t anyway. > > Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , > > Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > already consumed hundreds of billions of dollars and over 3,100 of our > troops. And the Dow dropped almost 500 points today. Imagine that. So, a few years equals never-ending? And is that the same Dow that's at some of its highest levels ever? Sheep shagging pics. An oldie but a goodie. http://gracemere.tripod.com/Art/sheep.htm SignatureBrad Leyden 6° 43.5816' S 146° 59.3097' E WGS84 You haven't seen a stolen election yet, just wait for PNG in 2007. Correction it won't be stolen, it will be purchased wholesale. To mail spam is really hot but please reply to thread so all may benefit (or laugh at my mistakes) > >> > Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And is that the same Dow that's at some of its highest levels ever? > Sheep shagging pics. An oldie but a goodie. > > http://gracemere.tripod.com/Art/sheep.htm a point I keep trying to make > Professor Joseph Olson of Hamlin University School of Law, St. Paul , > Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 > Presidential election: "DISCLAIMER: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scotish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I've been trying to kill it for 3 years. For details see: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp." http://www.hamline.edu/law/professors/joseph_olson.html More B.S. as usual. Imagine that. >From the Snopes site: 5. The county-by-county murder-rate comparison presented in this piece is wrong. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ), in the year 2000 the national murder rate was about 5.5 per 100,000 residents. Homicide data by county for 1999 and 2000 can be downloaded from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NAJCD), and the counties won by Gore and Bush can be identified using the county-by-county election results made available by CNN. (The NACJD provides not only the number of reported murders for each county, but also the population for each.) The average murder rate in the counties won by Gore vs. the rate in the counties won by Bush can be determined from this data. By calculating the murder rate for each county and then taking the averages, we find a murder rate (defined as number of murders per 100,000 residents) of about 5.2 for the "average" Gore county and 3.3 for the average Bush county. But since people, rather than counties, commit murders, a more appropriate approach is to calculate the total number of murders in the counties won by each candidate and divide that figure by the total number of residents in those counties. This more appropriate method yields the following average murder rates in counties won by each candidate: Gore: 6.5 Bush: 4.1 There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). Note that the average of these two figures is 5.3, which, as expected, is very close to the reported national murder rate of 5.5. > Gore: 6.5 > Bush: 4.1 > There is a distinct difference between these two numbers, but it is > nowhere near as large as the quoted e-mail message states (i.e., 13.2 > for Gore vs. 2.1 for Bush). Note that the average of these two figures > is 5.3, which, as expected, is very close to the reported national > murder rate of 5.5. OK, I'll take your word for it. Murders in counties carried by gore were 6.5 or 18% above the national average and 59% above the average in counties won by Bush. Seems pretty conclusive to me. What do you think? Lee > OK, I'll take your word for it. Murders in counties carried by gore were > 6.5 or 18% above the national average and 59% above the average in counties > won by Bush. Seems pretty conclusive to me. What do you think? That the people in counties won by Gore needed killin' more? > > Gore: 6.5 > > Bush: 4.1 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 6.5 or 18% above the national average and 59% above the average in counties > won by Bush. Seems pretty conclusive to me. What do you think? Conclusive about what? They're just numbers. Why does it surprise you that inner cities would have higher murder rates than farmland, especially when most of the drugs and gangs are located in the inner cities? It's usually the case that intelligent liberals live in cities because that's where all the good white-collar jobs are located, not to mention culture and decent restaurants. It's usually the case that uneducated redneck conservatives live outside cities because that's where all the cheap trailer sites are located, along with the farming and manufacturing jobs that don't require any brains, and the local zoning ordinances don't ban tossing used beer cans on the patch of dirt outside the trailer. Seems pretty conclusive to me. What do you think? > > > Gore: 6.5 > > > Bush: 4.1 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cans on the patch of dirt outside the trailer. Seems pretty > conclusive to me. So, intelligent white liberals tend to shoot people more than uneducated redneck conservatives? That's an interesting perspective. > So, intelligent white liberals tend to shoot people more than uneducated redneck conservatives? > > That's an interesting perspective. Uh, yeah, sure it is. And with Lee's and your take on statistical interpretation and causality, it's "clear" that the only reason why our murder rate is higher is because we're better marksmen. It's a widely demonstrated fact that crime rates rise with overcrowding and another widely demonstrated fact that crime rates rise with poverty. Why should it be at all surprising that overcrowded impoverished urban areas have higher crime rates? What surprises me is that the difference is so low. Why are all the armed ruralite Bush voters committing so many crimes? Are they arguing over cows or biblical interpretations or what? > Uh, yeah, sure it is. And with Lee's and your take on statistical > interpretation and causality, it's "clear" that the only reason why > our murder rate is higher is because we're better marksmen. Better look at the statistics again. The last ones I saw did not indicate that we are better marksmen . . . or better armed, or more willing to shoot. > It's a widely demonstrated fact that crime rates rise with overcrowding . > . . So overcrowding is the problem, not guns. OK, I'll buy that. How does that fit with your opinion that 20 million illegals is fine and dandy, illegals that, by the way, seem to concentrate in exactly the areas you refer to? > Why should it be at all surprising that overcrowded impoverished urban > areas . . . You mean the ones where all the people that reduce your cost of living are, you know, the ones that keep your construction and law maintenance costs down? > . . . have higher crime rates? It's only numbers, remember? It doesn't surprise us. What does surprise us is that you think that, knowing that those areas exist in close proximity to many of us, your answer is to leave them armed and disarm us. > What surprises me is that the difference is so low. Why are all the armed > ruralite Bush voters committing so many crimes? Are > they arguing over cows or biblical interpretations or what? Mostly it's because you liberals have convinced them that they have a right to what everyone else has to work for and confirmed it by gutting the justice system that was originally designed to prove otherwise. Lee >>Uh, yeah, sure it is. And with Le |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message