Discussion:
Bush, Put a Cork in It
(too old to reply)
MISS USA, Slut
2006-12-26 20:13:33 UTC
Permalink
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
DETROIT -- The nation's emergency military call-up system is being tested.
It's just a test, the Busheviks assure us. They have no intention of
reviving the draft. This is just a test. Sure.

President George Bush is determined to send a surge of troops into Iraq.
What his military commanders say about more troops is meaningless. Bush
decides first, then his minions fall into line, fabricating facts to support
whatever fantasy the Great Decider has conjured up.

The delusional Bush remains convinced more military action will bring
"victory" and more troops will make him "successful" in Iraq. Bush -- like
Lyndon Johnson before him -- is a self-anointed Carl von Clausewitz, in his
twisted mind a superb military strategist who knows more than the generals.

The Washington Post reports, "The Bush administration is split over the idea
of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively
promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff."

Bush, whose own military career was largely spent AWOL -- blacked-out in
bars in Texas and Alabama, and ducking drills and a required physical for
pilots -- is now calling the shots and ignoring the commanders. Bush always
trusts his "gut" over wise advice, facts and truth.

Bush is crazy enough and poised to order U.S. forces to square off with
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi militia. Those fighters, 60,000
strong, are now systematically killing and displacing Sunni residents of
Baghdad.

A new Pentagon report notes the Shiite militia has replaced al-Qaeda as "the
most dangerous accelerant of potentially self-sustaining sectarian violence
in Iraq." A United Nations survey found 40,000 people are fleeing Iraq every
month for Syria alone.

Bush thinks sending in more troops for a confrontation with the Mahdi
militia would help stem the sectarian violence and prevent the cleansing of
Baghdad's Sunni population. He wants to gamble that U.S. troops deployed
into the streets of Sadr City, the Shiite stronghold in Baghdad, can
forcefully extinguish the civil war.

Rep. Ike Skelton, a Missouri Democrat and the incoming chairman of the House
Armed Services Committee, considers a troop surge far more soberly than
trigger-finger Bush. Skelton told The New York Times, "Everything I've heard
and everything I know to be true lead me to believe that this increase at
best won't change a thing and at worst could exacerbate the situation even
further."

Iraq is quickly fragmenting into a failed state that could ignite a regional
conflict, drawing neighboring nations into a proxy war. The International
Crisis Group, based in Brussels, offers a bleak assessment of Bush's
experiment in nation-building: "Hollowed-out and fatally weakened, the Iraqi
state today is prey to armed militias, sectarian forces and a political
class that, by putting short-term personal benefit ahead of long-term
national interests, is complicit in Iraq's tragic destruction."

Bush and the neocon crazies whose lies, arrogance and messianic madness
brought us "Iraq's tragic destruction" are equally complicit, along with the
other politicians and cheerleaders in the media who rooted them on.

The week between Christmas and New Year's Day presents many overworked and
underpaid Americans a chance to relax, get together with families and
friends, have a few gentle libations, chat and catch up on what everybody's
been up to.

I certainly don't want to spoil the tranquility of such moments, but the
tumultuous times we live in require reflection on serious life-and-death
issues. Bush's war should be topic No. 1.

Make it into a parlor game. Let's have a show of hands. How many want their
parents, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends to join the
military and go to Iraq to fight in Bush's war? How many think Americans you
don't know should continue to pour into Iraq and be placed in the crossfire
of a civil war and the unrelenting sectarian violence the invasion and
incompetent occupation have fostered?

"A lot has been sacrificed in Iraq, a lot has been invested in Iraq,"
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Associated Press last week.
"But the president wouldn't ask for the continued sacrifice, the continued
investment, if he did not believe, and in fact I believe as well, that we
can in fact succeed and in fact that it's imperative we succeed."

Bush, Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney will sacrifice countless more
Americans and Iraqis in their desperation to save face and salvage their
eternally stained reputations. They lied their way into an unnecessary war
that is now a hopeless fiasco. They are willing to see more Americans die
trying to rescue their investment.

Legendary war correspondent Joseph Galloway says Bush's "move is 'doubling
down,' a gambler's term for upping your bet when you've already lost a
bundle."

Galloway says if Bush chooses the troop surge option, "it will be against
the best advice of the American military commanders on the ground, the
unanimous opposition of the service chiefs in the Pentagon and the most
thoughtful military analysts in and out of uniform."

Let's have another show of hands at your holiday gathering. How many have
confidence in Bush as a military strategist? How many want your children's
future in his hands? How many think Bush is a madman incapable of
recognizing and admitting his mistakes?

We are now spending $2 billion a week on the war, and next year the total
could top $170 billion. Before the bloodshed is over, U.S. taxpayers may
drop $1 trillion into Bush's hole. Working-class people whose payroll checks
are taxed are paying inordinately for the war that is largely financed
through deficit spending. Fifty million Americans have no health insurance,
while we pay for state-sponsored coverage in Iraq.

Another show of hands. How many favor paying more taxes to pay for Bush's
war out front rather than tacking the costs on the national Visa card? Would
you rather see the government do more to reduce the cost of student loans
for college or spend that money on Halliburton's no-bid contracts in Iraq?

As Bush plots more violence, more and more of the former supporters of the
war are renouncing it. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is abandoning Bush as
she prepares to make a run for the White House. After voting in 2002 to
authorize Bush's attack on Iraq, Clinton is now backpedaling, telling NBC's
"Today" show, "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't
have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

Hillary has long defended her vote in favor of he war, never apologizing for
it. She just blamed Bush after things soured in Iraq, claiming the mistake
was "the way the president used the authority."

One more show of hands. How many believe Hillary is just an opportunist,
jumping off the war bandwagon to save her own political hide?

The great Irish writer Oscar Wilde once quipped, "As long as war is regarded
as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it's looked upon as
vulgar, it will cease to be popular."

I guess for Hillary Clinton, the war she long supported has reached a vulgar
point.


Bill Gallagher, a Peabody Award winner, is a former Niagara Falls city
councilman who now covers Detroit for Fox2 News. His e-mail address is
***@sbcglobal.net.
ZNUYBV
2006-12-26 23:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
kenny gg jones
2006-12-26 23:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Don't forget that Hitler over-ruled his generals, also.
Adam Albright
2006-12-26 23:27:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:07:47 -0800, kenny gg jones <"kenny gg
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Don't forget that Hitler over-ruled his generals, also.
He also killed himself. Hmm...if only.

I hope Laura stocks the white house residence with plenty of ptetzels.
Adam Albright
2006-12-26 23:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Jim E
2006-12-26 23:38:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see an
important mission through to the end.



Jim E
kenny gg jones
2006-12-26 23:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see an
important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.

That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
Jim E
2006-12-26 23:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see
an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.

You are a name calling insignificant.


Jim E
kenny gg jones
2006-12-26 23:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see
an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.

Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.

Bush and Hitler both did that.
Jim E
2006-12-27 00:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.


Jim E
MI
2006-12-27 01:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to compare
Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Jim E
2006-12-27 01:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to compare
Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.



Jim E
MI
2006-12-27 03:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to compare
Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Jim E
2006-12-27 03:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to compare
Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Like we have now?
Ridin the wave.



Jim E
MI
2006-12-27 04:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to
compare Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Like we have now?
Ridin the wave.
Jim E
You are full of shit. I made mucho bucks off the Dot Com surges of the late
90's and hear nothing but doom stories right now from everyone in the
business.
Keep your lies buried, your ass is showing.
Jim E
2006-12-27 04:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win
this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to
compare Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Like we have now?
Ridin the wave.
Jim E
You are full of shit. I made mucho bucks off the Dot Com surges of the
late 90's and hear nothing but doom stories right now from everyone in the
business.
Keep your lies buried, your ass is showing.
Dot coms are dead.
This year >20% return, S&P and a few select hvy manufacturers.
No complaints here.



Jim E
Greg
2006-12-28 00:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win
this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to
compare Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Like we have now?
Ridin the wave.
Jim E
You are full of shit. I made mucho bucks off the Dot Com surges of the
late 90's and hear nothing but doom stories right now from everyone in the
business.
Keep your lies buried, your ass is showing.
Dot coms are dead.
This year >20% return, S&P and a few select hvy manufacturers.
No complaints here.
A LIE!!! Jimmy you first showed your true colors with the dead Kennedy
remark. Now claiming a 20% return? I'm a broker. If you got lucky to invest
in gold 3 years ago, yes. If you picked up a few good International funds,
yes. Overall no more than a 2% annual return on average. We all get lucky
and got a chance on the google IPO, but no way in hell has the average
American got an annual 20% return. Yo have proved yourself a liar. The Dow
itself under GW has only been up 9% in a little less than 7 years. Thats's
an annual return of 1.28%. The S&P (your benchmark quote) under GW started
at 1342 and is currently at 1416. A diffeence of 74 points. Where the fuck
did you go to school? That's not 20%. Not the way I was taught mathematics.
That's 5.5% over a little under 7 years. That's less than a 1% return
annually. You Jimmy are a fucking liar. Big surprise.....
Post by Jim E
Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-28 05:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win
this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
perversion.
Jim E
Lincoln never saw the CSA as "another nation" so when you try to
compare Bush to Lincoln it's a laugh on every level.
Bush is as Lincoln-esque as Hitler was Kennedy-esque.
Well you got it half right.
It's a good thing that Kennedy got whacked.
Jim E
Yeah, who wanted the best economy in World History?
Like we have now?
Ridin the wave.
Jim E
You are full of shit. I made mucho bucks off the Dot Com surges of the
late 90's and hear nothing but doom stories right now from everyone in
the
Post by Jim E
Post by MI
business.
Keep your lies buried, your ass is showing.
Dot coms are dead.
This year >20% return, S&P and a few select hvy manufacturers.
No complaints here.
A LIE!!! Jimmy you first showed your true colors with the dead Kennedy
remark. Now claiming a 20% return? I'm a broker. If you got lucky to invest
in gold 3 years ago, yes. If you picked up a few good International funds,
yes. Overall no more than a 2% annual return on average. We all get lucky
and got a chance on the google IPO, but no way in hell has the average
American got an annual 20% return. Yo have proved yourself a liar. The Dow
itself under GW has only been up 9% in a little less than 7 years. Thats's
an annual return of 1.28%. The S&P (your benchmark quote) under GW started
at 1342 and is currently at 1416. A diffeence of 74 points. Where the fuck
did you go to school? That's not 20%. Not the way I was taught
mathematics.
That's 5.5% over a little under 7 years. That's less than a 1% return
annually. You Jimmy are a fucking liar. Big surprise.....
Post by Jim E
Jim E
Stock index fund loosely related to the S&P gave me a 23% return since 1 Jan
06.
I looked at it today through Hewitt associates .
Also KMB, nearly as profitable, and a few minor do nothing investments that
have been shed.


Jim E
-Nosmo-King-
2006-12-27 02:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously
you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the Presidencey
there was still a United States of America. (He also served honorable as
a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went AWOL in the face of
battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of that United States of
America fired on an Army installation in South Carolina. Lincoln
delcared that the Union would be preserved and used his office and his
role as Commander in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion.
Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's
in the record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had already
decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude has
been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is
obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other
blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed policies is really
amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim E
2006-12-27 02:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously
you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the Presidencey
there was still a United States of America. (He also served honorable as
a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went AWOL in the face of
battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of that United States of
America fired on an Army installation in South Carolina. Lincoln
delcared that the Union would be preserved and used his office and his
role as Commander in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion.
Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's
in the record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had already
decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude has
been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is
obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other
blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed policies is really
amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.



Jim E
-Nosmo-King-
2006-12-27 02:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went
AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of
that United States of America fired on an Army installation in South
Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union would be preserved and
used his office and his role as Commander in Chief of the Army to
quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already
faulty intelligence (it's in the record that much of what we
supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way into invading a
country illegally. That he had already decided that he was going to
invade Iraq long before, regardless of the evidence, has been well
documented. And the fact that his attitude has been cavilier and
dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is
an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of like
Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your hands,
cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're spinning out
of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless (ha!) leader's led
you down the garden path to oblivion and you just can't accept it. Too
bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right, you're wrong. Spin that.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim E
2006-12-27 03:01:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went
AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of
that United States of America fired on an Army installation in South
Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union would be preserved and
used his office and his role as Commander in Chief of the Army to
quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already
faulty intelligence (it's in the record that much of what we
supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way into invading a
country illegally. That he had already decided that he was going to
invade Iraq long before, regardless of the evidence, has been well
documented. And the fact that his attitude has been cavilier and
dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is
an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of like
Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your hands,
cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're spinning out
of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless (ha!) leader's led
you down the garden path to oblivion and you just can't accept it. Too
bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right, you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in the last
year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short game
again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?




Jim E
-Nosmo-King-
2006-12-27 04:07:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander in
Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand,
cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the record that
much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way
into invading a country illegally. That he had already decided that
he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude
has been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified
men is obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you
and the other blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed
policies is really amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how
dumb you are. Kind of like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you just
can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right,
you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in the
last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short game
again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's run
out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!". My
economic situation is just fine, but we're talking about Bush's failed
policies in Iraq. But if you think it will have no lasting affect your
financial security, think again. Oh, I know you'll blame the democrats
when Bush's fiscal irresponsibility comes home to roost and no amount of
pointing out the truth of the matter will make you see otherwise, but
that's the motto of the neocon conservative. Stick your head in the
sand, ignore reality, and when it bites you in the ass, blame the other
guy. Hey, why don't we change the subject again. Global warming is a
hoax, right? Or a democratic conspiracy against the oil companies? Or
it's caused by Bill Clinton's penis? You guys are such a joke.

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim E
2006-12-27 04:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win
this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander in
Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand,
cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the record that
much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way
into invading a country illegally. That he had already decided that
he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude
has been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified
men is obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you
and the other blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed
policies is really amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how
dumb you are. Kind of like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you just
can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right,
you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in the
last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short game
again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's run
out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!"
Pay attention you blathering twit.
You said that I was moaning, gnashing my teeth, wringing my hands, and in
all ways desperate.
Spinning into oblivion I believe was your phrase, you can check above.
I point out that I am none of those things and you launch into a DNC talking
point resitation.
You are becoming tiresome.



Jim E




My
Post by -Nosmo-King-
economic situation is just fine, but we're talking about Bush's failed
policies in Iraq. But if you think it will have no lasting affect your
financial security, think again. Oh, I know you'll blame the democrats
when Bush's fiscal irresponsibility comes home to roost and no amount of
pointing out the truth of the matter will make you see otherwise, but
that's the motto of the neocon conservative. Stick your head in the
sand, ignore reality, and when it bites you in the ass, blame the other
guy. Hey, why don't we change the subject again. Global warming is a
hoax, right? Or a democratic conspiracy against the oil companies? Or
it's caused by Bill Clinton's penis? You guys are such a joke.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
-Nosmo-King-
2006-12-27 11:40:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still
win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the
point of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander
in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other
hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the
record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had
already decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before,
regardless of the evidence, has been well documented. And the
fact that his attitude has been cavilier and dismissive of the
advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is an abject
failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you
just can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're
right, you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in
the last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short
game again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's
run out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!"
Pay attention you blathering twit.
You said that I was moaning, gnashing my teeth, wringing my hands, and
in all ways desperate.
Spinning into oblivion I believe was your phrase, you can check above.
I point out that I am none of those things and you launch into a DNC
talking point resitation.
You are becoming tiresome.
Jim E
Startin' to lose it huh? Try to hold a conversation with you people and
you go to pieces. Young man, you need to get a hold of yourself. Put a
cool rag on the back of your neck and lie down for awhile.
Post by Jim E
My
Post by -Nosmo-King-
economic situation is just fine, but we're talking about Bush's
failed policies in Iraq. But if you think it will have no lasting
affect your financial security, think again. Oh, I know you'll blame
the democrats when Bush's fiscal irresponsibility comes home to roost
and no amount of pointing out the truth of the matter will make you
see otherwise, but that's the motto of the neocon conservative.
Stick your head in the sand, ignore reality, and when it bites you in
the ass, blame the other guy. Hey, why don't we change the subject
again. Global warming is a hoax, right? Or a democratic conspiracy
against the oil companies? Or it's caused by Bill Clinton's penis?
You guys are such a joke.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim E
2006-12-28 05:26:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still
win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the
point of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander
in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other
hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the
record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had
already decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before,
regardless of the evidence, has been well documented. And the
fact that his attitude has been cavilier and dismissive of the
advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is an abject
failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you
just can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're
right, you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in
the last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short
game again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's
run out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!"
Pay attention you blathering twit.
You said that I was moaning, gnashing my teeth, wringing my hands, and
in all ways desperate.
Spinning into oblivion I believe was your phrase, you can check above.
I point out that I am none of those things and you launch into a DNC
talking point resitation.
You are becoming tiresome.
Jim E
Startin' to lose it huh? Try to hold a conversation with you people and
you go to pieces. Young man, you need to get a hold of yourself. Put a
cool rag on the back of your neck and lie down for awhile.
I sit back and watch my investments grow with a gloating pleasure.


Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-28 05:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still
win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the
point of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander
in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other
hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the
record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had
already decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before,
regardless of the evidence, has been well documented. And the
fact that his attitude has been cavilier and dismissive of the
advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is an abject
failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you
just can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're
right, you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in
the last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short
game again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's
run out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!"
Pay attention you blathering twit.
You said that I was moaning, gnashing my teeth, wringing my hands, and
in all ways desperate.
Spinning into oblivion I believe was your phrase, you can check above.
I point out that I am none of those things and you launch into a DNC
talking point resitation.
You are becoming tiresome.
Jim E
Startin' to lose it huh? Try to hold a conversation with you people and
you go to pieces. Young man, you need to get a hold of yourself. Put a
cool rag on the back of your neck and lie down for awhile.
I sit back and watch my investments grow with a gloating pleasure.


Jim E

Jim E
2006-12-27 04:16:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win
this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never
went AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious
citizens of that United States of America fired on an Army
installation in South Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union
would be preserved and used his office and his role as Commander in
Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand,
cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's in the record that
much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way
into invading a country illegally. That he had already decided that
he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude
has been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified
men is obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you
and the other blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed
policies is really amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how
dumb you are. Kind of like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your
hands, cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're
spinning out of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless
(ha!) leader's led you down the garden path to oblivion and you just
can't accept it. Too bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right,
you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in the
last year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short game
again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?
Jim E
Ah, another repug tactic. Change the subject. Kinda like a kid who's run
out of arguements and sputters, "yeah, well so's your old man!"
Pay attention you blathering twit.
You said that I was moaning, gnashing my teeth, wringing my hands, and in
all ways desperate.
Spinning into oblivion I believe was your phrase, you can check above.
I point out that I am none of those things and you launch into a DNC talking
point resitation.
You are becoming tiresome.



Jim E




My
Post by -Nosmo-King-
economic situation is just fine, but we're talking about Bush's failed
policies in Iraq. But if you think it will have no lasting affect your
financial security, think again. Oh, I know you'll blame the democrats
when Bush's fiscal irresponsibility comes home to roost and no amount of
pointing out the truth of the matter will make you see otherwise, but
that's the motto of the neocon conservative. Stick your head in the
sand, ignore reality, and when it bites you in the ass, blame the other
guy. Hey, why don't we change the subject again. Global warming is a
hoax, right? Or a democratic conspiracy against the oil companies? Or
it's caused by Bill Clinton's penis? You guys are such a joke.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Jim E
2006-12-27 03:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
On 26 Dec 2006 15:01:41 -0800, "ZNUYBV"
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln.
Obviously you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are
willing to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point
of perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the
Presidencey there was still a United States of America. (He also
served honorable as a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went
AWOL in the face of battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of
that United States of America fired on an Army installation in South
Carolina. Lincoln delcared that the Union would be preserved and
used his office and his role as Commander in Chief of the Army to
quell the rebellion. Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already
faulty intelligence (it's in the record that much of what we
supposedly knew was suspect), then lied his way into invading a
country illegally. That he had already decided that he was going to
invade Iraq long before, regardless of the evidence, has been well
documented. And the fact that his attitude has been cavilier and
dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is obvious. Bush is
an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other blind mice who
scurry around supporting his failed policies is really amazing.
You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of like
Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.
Jim E
You're just blowing smoke. You can gnash your teeth, wring your hands,
cry, moan, hurl insults, try to spin the truth, but you're spinning out
of control and have nothing to offer. Your fearless (ha!) leader's led
you down the garden path to oblivion and you just can't accept it. Too
bad for you. We won, you lost, we're right, you're wrong. Spin that.
What you call oblivion, I call a really fat 401. Over 20% gain in the last
year alone.
When the dims assume power I will have to start playing the short game
again.
My future is secure.
How about you, loudmouth, no appreciation for a sound economy?




Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-27 02:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously
you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the Presidencey
there was still a United States of America. (He also served honorable as
a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went AWOL in the face of
battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of that United States of
America fired on an Army installation in South Carolina. Lincoln
delcared that the Union would be preserved and used his office and his
role as Commander in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion.
Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's
in the record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had already
decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude has
been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is
obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other
blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed policies is really
amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.



Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-27 02:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by -Nosmo-King-
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously
you have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing
to see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
I was hoping that some such fool as you would reply.
Lincoln never invaded another country for no valid reason.
Bush and Hitler both did that.
Both invaded, actually all three.
Lincoln invaded the CSA, did you forget that little dust up?
And what you interpret as " valid reasons" is suspect to the point of
perversion.
Jim E
Where did you go to school? When Lincoln was elected to the Presidencey
there was still a United States of America. (He also served honorable as
a Captain in the Illinois militia. He never went AWOL in the face of
battle.) "Insurgents" or rebelious citizens of that United States of
America fired on an Army installation in South Carolina. Lincoln
delcared that the Union would be preserved and used his office and his
role as Commander in Chief of the Army to quell the rebellion.
Bush, on the other hand, cherry picked already faulty intelligence (it's
in the record that much of what we supposedly knew was suspect), then
lied his way into invading a country illegally. That he had already
decided that he was going to invade Iraq long before, regardless of the
evidence, has been well documented. And the fact that his attitude has
been cavilier and dismissive of the advice of better qualified men is
obvious. Bush is an abject failure, and the fact that you and the other
blind mice who scurry around supporting his failed policies is really
amazing. You're so dumb that you don't know how dumb you are. Kind of
like Bush.
Your blindness to reality is not your fault.
Your religion has poisoned your mind.
The religion of liberalism.
May god have mercy on your soul, and in the meantime, may your carcass rot.



Jim E
MI
2006-12-27 00:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
All Bush has proven is that American republicans are intolerable weasles
who's incompetence has made America even more vulnerable.
Bush's bullshit "Crusades" will end the same way all the others have ended.
In failure.
Hell, Bush could've gotten more done by sending Jeb's KKK to Iraq instead of
Halliburton.
Jim E
2006-12-27 01:21:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by MI
Post by Jim E
Post by kenny gg jones
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see an important mission through to the end.
For all that, Bush will still lose in Iraq.
That's because Bush has more in common with Hitler than with Lincoln.
I present historic parallels
You bring nothing but personal hatred.
You are a name calling insignificant.
Jim E
All Bush has proven is that American republicans are intolerable weasles
who's incompetence has made America even more vulnerable.
Bush's bullshit "Crusades" will end the same way all the others have ended.
In failure.
Hell, Bush could've gotten more done by sending Jeb's KKK to Iraq instead
of Halliburton.
Nice rant, no substance, but a good rant.



Jim E
Greg
2006-12-26 23:58:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see an
AH Shit!!! I actually had a little hope for Jimmy. He started his post off
so well then the drooling and the Bush hard on found it's way out.
Post by Jim E
important mission through to the end.
If is importance is measured by failure, he's doing a heck of a job Brownie.
Post by Jim E
Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-27 00:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Greg
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see
an
AH Shit
Your incontinence is not our problem.

Try to stay on topic.



Jim E
Greg
2006-12-27 00:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jim E
Post by Greg
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this thing.
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to see
an
AH Shit
Your incontinence is not our problem.
Try to stay on topic.
Sorry to embarrass you......
Post by Jim E
Jim E
Jim E
2006-12-27 01:24:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by Jim E
Post by Greg
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Post by ZNUYBV
Post by MISS USA, Slut
BUSH NOW OVERRULING OWN GENERALS
By Bill Gallagher
Good. He's starting to act like Lincoln. Me may still win this
thing.
Post by Jim E
Post by Greg
Post by Jim E
Post by Adam Albright
Now you've gone way too far. Comparing Bush to Lincoln. Obviously you
have no shame at all.
Actually the two equate rather well.
Forceful leaders with a minimum of popular support who are willing to
see
Post by Jim E
Post by Greg
an
AH Shit
Your incontinence is not our problem.
Try to stay on topic.
Sorry to embarrass you......
No problem ;-)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...