OT: If Bush is Elected

[Rolavine]

I will have to listen to an idiot that says things like:

"Of course I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us, I know that."

Or we have captured or killed 75% of Al Qaida Leadership.

You know if you want a president that is totally out of touch and a total
failure to boot then Bush is your man!

In a recent Gallop poll 50% of Republicans said that Saddam was in on the
planning of 9/11. As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're doomed!

 

[John Larkin]

On 18 Oct 2004 20:17:37 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're doomed!

Right! We should go back to literacy testing and poll taxes, like in
the good ol' days. You can probably find a few retired Mississippi
politicians to show you how it's done.

John

 

[James Beck]

In article <20041018161737.11769.00002531@mb-m29.aol.com>,
rolavine@aol.com says...

I will have to listen to an idiot that says things like:

"Of course I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us, I know that."

Or we have captured or killed 75% of Al Qaida Leadership.

You know if you want a president that is totally out of touch and a total
failure to boot then Bush is your man!

In a recent Gallop poll 50% of Republicans said that Saddam was in on the
planning of 9/11. As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're doomed!



Yeah, what we need is a guy with a "Plan".

LOL

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:32:07 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

Right! We should go back to literacy testing and poll taxes, like in
the good ol' days. You can probably find a few retired Mississippi
politicians to show you how it's done.

Interestingly, this was more the original intent of the electoral college --
which early on recruited its members from the more "enlightened" citizens,
believing these to be "free from any sinister bias," as well read as they were
well traveled, and otherwise "admired for their virtue, discernment, and
information."

No testing, exactly. But still based on the idea of only allowing those
supposedly more wise on the issues to be involved in the actual electing of a
President of the US.

It didn't last all that long, in that mode -- "descending" instead to what
amounts to little other than partisan stoogery by the 1830's.

Jon

 

[John S. Dyson]

In article <3t98n01fhii48jnapnp69j62i91bdde5o4@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> writes:

On 18 Oct 2004 20:17:37 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're doomed!


Right! We should go back to literacy testing and poll taxes, like in
the good ol' days. You can probably find a few retired Mississippi
politicians to show you how it's done.

Given even MINIMAL literacy testing (ignoring the poll taxes), that would

eliminate most of the Democrat voters. There'll still be the
pseudo-intelligent Democrat advocates (those who are indeed expert in
a certain field, but DEFINITELY not in politics or common sense.) There'll
also still be the errsatz-intelligent Democrat advocates (J Garafolo, Stuart
Smelly, etc) who are simply not really very smart in general, but have
a good schtick where they have been trained to 'look smart'. Also, we
have the perversely intelligent Democrat advocates (e.g. Bill Marr), where
they have some intellect, but an obviously twisted mind. (Actually,
Stuart Smalley looks mentally deficient, until he wears his costumes,
and then he looks more like a typical Democrat, who probably doesn't
achieve the goals of personal hygiene.

When talking about the Democrat voters, we basically have the minimally
intelligent people like the advocates above, but when considering those
who could really pass a non-trivial literacy test, we'd lose a much
much larger portion of the Democrat voters than GOPers. Geesh, to gain
success, the Dem party even depends upon the felon vote. For one half
of the Senators in Mass, we have an actual killer of a gal-pal.

John

 

[Jim Yanik]

Mike Ng <ude.yelekreb.scee.yroc@gnm.ROTATE> wrote in
news:cl1f8h$2v0l$2@agate.berkeley.edu:

Brian wrote:

Yeah, like we could believe anything this guy with a "Plan" says,
other
than give me all your money, so he can make the government much
bigger.
Yea, Right!



But the current guy made the government bigger.

Considering 9-11,global terrorism,and its effects,that's understandable.
The important thing is to not add never-ending,ever-expanding social
programs that government has no business doing.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

 

[Brian]

"Mike Ng" <ude.yelekreb.scee.yroc@gnm.ROTATE> wrote in message
news:cl1f8h$2v0l$2@agate.berkeley.edu...

Brian wrote:
"James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bddf34fe047b62c989a30@news.west.earthlink.net...
In article <20041018161737.11769.00002531@mb-m29.aol.com>,
rolavine@aol.com says...
I will have to listen to an idiot that says things like:

"Of course I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us, I know that."

Or we have captured or killed 75% of Al Qaida Leadership.

You know if you want a president that is totally out of touch and
a
total
failure to boot then Bush is your man!

In a recent Gallop poll 50% of Republicans said that Saddam was in
on
the
planning of 9/11. As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote
we're
doomed!



Yeah, what we need is a guy with a "Plan".
LOL


Yeah, like we could believe anything this guy with a "Plan" says,
other
than give me all your money, so he can make the government much bigger.
Yea, Right!



But the current guy made the government bigger.

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he has his
way.

 

[Rolavine]

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

"James Beck" <jim@reallykillersystems.com> wrote
rolavine@aol.com says...
I will have to listen to an idiot that says things like:

"Of course I know Osama Bin Laden attacked us, I know that."

Or we have captured or killed 75% of Al Qaida Leadership.

You know if you want a president that is totally out of touch and a
total
failure to boot then Bush is your man!

In a recent Gallop poll 50% of Republicans said that Saddam was in on
the
planning of 9/11. As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're
doomed!



Yeah, what we need is a guy with a "Plan".
LOL


Yeah, like we could believe anything this guy with a "Plan" says, other
than give me all your money, so he can make the government much bigger.
Yea, Right!

Well maybe it's just me but I do a lot of planning, When I bid a project it's

all a plan, when I decide what part to do first and when, or when to order the
parts or do the documentation. Given a choice of a guy that plans and a guy
that don't for president, I'll take the planner.

By the way we have some real problems in this country that someone should stop
ignoreing and maybe even try to fix?

Better a plan than a guy that just waits for the voice in his head he calls
Jesus to tell him what country to invade next.

 

[Rolavine]

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he has his
way.

Kerry has a record of being a fiscal conservative, you should take a look at

that before you buy into BS!

Bush has grown govenment but national security has only cost about 30 billion.
The war in Iraq which had almost nothing to do with homeland security, or
anything else other than a personal jihad, has cost about 200 billion (the
admin had not been honest about the actual cost). Bush's tax cuts to the
wealthiest cost about 200 billion per year. Bush is borrowing about 500 billion
this year. The cost of the federal govt is about $9K per citizen.

Bush has shown that he doesn't care about running up the deficit. Given that,
there is nothing to stop him from expanding his empire. It seems the entrenched
party are the ones that grow govt. the most, my advice is to vote for gridlock.
With gridlock they can't possibly spend it as fast as they have been. I have
yet to find a single economist that is not in a Republican Pocket that defends
the Bush admins handling of the economy. So your going to vote for horrible
because your just so damn sure the other guy will do worse, lol.

Rocky



Rocky

 

[Rolavine]

From: toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson)

Given even MINIMAL literacy testing (ignoring the poll taxes), that would
eliminate most of the Democrat voters.

Where do you get this stuff your cracking me up!

I actually looked for polls to show that the Republicans are the dumbshits (we
all know it is true you can come out of the closets now) but none of the
polsters want to touch that one with a ten foot pole.

Gallop says half the Repugs say Saddam was in on the planning of 9/11. That is
a pretty good sign that they are droolers.

I shouldn't be this fair, but that same poll says that 26% of the Democrats
went along with the 50% of Republicans. This indicates that about a third of
voters are badly misinformed. This Admin and the pro Bush networks have managed
to spread this message in subtle ways.

Rocky

 

[Brian]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041018214945.08241.00002112@mb-m10.aol.com...

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he has
his
way.

Kerry has a record of being a fiscal conservative, you should take a
look at
that before you buy into BS!

Bush has grown govenment but national security has only cost about 30
billion.
The war in Iraq which had almost nothing to do with homeland security,
or
anything else other than a personal jihad, has cost about 200 billion
(the
admin had not been honest about the actual cost). Bush's tax cuts to the
wealthiest cost about 200 billion per year. Bush is borrowing about 500
billion
this year. The cost of the federal govt is about $9K per citizen.

Bush has shown that he doesn't care about running up the deficit. Given
that,
there is nothing to stop him from expanding his empire. It seems the
entrenched
party are the ones that grow govt. the most, my advice is to vote for
gridlock.
With gridlock they can't possibly spend it as fast as they have been. I
have
yet to find a single economist that is not in a Republican Pocket that
defends
the Bush admins handling of the economy. So your going to vote for
horrible
because your just so damn sure the other guy will do worse, lol.

Rocky



Rocky

Where did you get these kinds of numbers from. The average Joe,
doesn't know these numbers.
Usually the only people that put out these kind of numbers are
people closely associated with the
Democratic party, or those brainwashed by them. Be honest, where
did you get all these facts
and figures from?
Brian

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:55:22 +0000, John S. Dyson wrote:

In article <3t98n01fhii48jnapnp69j62i91bdde5o4@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> writes:
On 18 Oct 2004 20:17:37 GMT, rolavine@aol.com (Rolavine) wrote:

As long as this shitwits are allowed to vote we're doomed!


Right! We should go back to literacy testing and poll taxes, like in
the good ol' days. You can probably find a few retired Mississippi
politicians to show you how it's done.

Given even MINIMAL literacy testing (ignoring the poll taxes), that would
eliminate most of the Democrat voters.

This is a joke, right?

Is it really possible for one human being to contain such primordial
bigotry?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:36:29 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

By the way we have some real problems in this country that someone
should stop ignoreing and maybe even try to fix?

You mean like, the rise of the fourth reich?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:49:45 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he has his
way.

Kerry has a record of being a fiscal conservative, you should take a look at
that before you buy into BS!

Bush has grown govenment but national security has only cost about 30 billion.

The cost in loss of liberty and crippling of the American Dream is
incalculable.

Thanks anyway, but take your homeland security and sell it to the gestapo.

Good Luck,
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:03:05 -0500, Brian wrote:

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041018214945.08241.00002112@mb-m10.aol.com...
From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he has
his
way.

Kerry has a record of being a fiscal conservative, you should take a
look at
that before you buy into BS!

Bush has grown govenment but national security has only cost about 30
billion.
The war in Iraq which had almost nothing to do with homeland security,
or
anything else other than a personal jihad, has cost about 200 billion
(the
admin had not been honest about the actual cost). Bush's tax cuts to the
wealthiest cost about 200 billion per year. Bush is borrowing about 500
billion
this year. The cost of the federal govt is about $9K per citizen.

Bush has shown that he doesn't care about running up the deficit. Given
that,
there is nothing to stop him from expanding his empire. It seems the
entrenched
party are the ones that grow govt. the most, my advice is to vote for
gridlock.
With gridlock they can't possibly spend it as fast as they have been. I
have
yet to find a single economist that is not in a Republican Pocket that
defends
the Bush admins handling of the economy. So your going to vote for
horrible
because your just so damn sure the other guy will do worse, lol.

Rocky



Rocky

Where did you get these kinds of numbers from. The average Joe,
doesn't know these numbers.
Usually the only people that put out these kind of numbers are
people closely associated with the
Democratic party, or those brainwashed by them. Be honest, where
did you get all these facts
and figures from?

Congressional Record?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Brian]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019141812.21613.00002471@mb-m10.aol.com...

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

"Rich Grise" <rich@example.net> wrote in message

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:49:45 +0000, Rolavine wrote:

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Are you saying we shouldn't have added homeland security and TSA.
Let Kerry get in and see how big the government will get, if he
has
his
way.

Kerry has a record of being a fiscal conservative, you should take
a
look at
that before you buy into BS!

Bush has grown govenment but national security has only cost about
30
billion.

The cost in loss of liberty and crippling of the American Dream is
incalculable.

Thanks anyway, but take your homeland security and sell it to the
gestapo.

Good Luck,
Rich

How incalculable would the loss be, if a terrorest set off a WMD here?

That would be bad, however even the Bush Admin has said it's not a
matter of
if, it's a matter of when. And for the Patriot act I believe the current
score
is Ashcroft 5000 investigations with 0 convictions!

It strikes me that homeland security and the new multi billion $ star
wars anti
missile system have something in common, every time they are tested they
fail!

This country has not been attacked since 9/11 because we have been
lucky, real
homeland security would cost a lot, I mean really a lot, I mean as much
as the
war in Iraq. And because of the war in Iraq, we need it worse.

Please join me in sending Bush into obscurity where he can only do a
little
more harm. Given his actions, statements, and the extent of the lies he
is
telling I can only guess that he wants to be sent home where he can
relax and
finish 'My Pet Goat'.

Iraq is like a giant vacuum, sucking in all those terrorests, so we can
kill them there. Yes, a little luck but mostly a lot of hard work. We need
to hold off the terrorests as long as we can. This gives us more time to
find them and shut them down. Please join me in sending Kerry back to his
little cubby hole, where he belongs. Kerry would be even less effective than
Clinton (I never thought I would imply something nice about Clinton), words
don't work with terrorests.

 

[Rolavine]

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

I repeat, where did "he himself" get this information?
Brian

Oh I guess that is me.

I've had the information I gave out so long I don't remember the sources. I'm
always trying to make sense of things by putting numbers into some useful
relationships.

OK for the cost of the federal govt per citizen, I know we have about 300
million citizens and the feds are spending about 2.5 trillion this year
(borrowing 500 million of it, or so). That comes out to about $8300 each but I
did the calculation in my head and called it 9K.

For cost of the tax cut, I used a figure I got from Factcheck.org a while ago.
However, even before that I had read that the whole cost of the tax cut was
about 400 billion, so it was conservative to say that half of it went to the
wealthiest.

If you find my numbers flawed please let me know.

For my statement about being fiscally conservative when I looked at Kerry's
voting record I also looked at how the various interest groups ranked him. He
got a good mark from the Concord Coalition, and they are a non partisan group
of fiscal hawk conservatives. Actually it was when once being grilled by these
never borrow a dime activists that Kerry said he was looking at a 50 cent a
gallon gas tax. While he never made a bill for that, voted for that, or never
gave it any other consideration that became the basis for Bush's attack ads
that said that Kerry supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. Complete BS from an
admin that is all about BS.

Again, if you find my statements factually flawed please let me know, because
sometimes they are, and I rather be corrected that continue to sound like a
fool! In that I'm close to the exact opposite of the President.

Rocky

 

[Brian]

"Rolavine" <rolavine@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041019144415.21613.00002473@mb-m10.aol.com...

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

I repeat, where did "he himself" get this information?
Brian

Oh I guess that is me.

I've had the information I gave out so long I don't remember the
sources. I'm
always trying to make sense of things by putting numbers into some
useful
relationships.

OK for the cost of the federal govt per citizen, I know we have about
300
million citizens and the feds are spending about 2.5 trillion this year
(borrowing 500 million of it, or so). That comes out to about $8300 each
but I
did the calculation in my head and called it 9K.

For cost of the tax cut, I used a figure I got from Factcheck.org a
while ago.
However, even before that I had read that the whole cost of the tax cut
was
about 400 billion, so it was conservative to say that half of it went to
the
wealthiest.

If you find my numbers flawed please let me know.

For my statement about being fiscally conservative when I looked at
Kerry's
voting record I also looked at how the various interest groups ranked
him. He
got a good mark from the Concord Coalition, and they are a non partisan
group
of fiscal hawk conservatives. Actually it was when once being grilled by
these
never borrow a dime activists that Kerry said he was looking at a 50
cent a
gallon gas tax. While he never made a bill for that, voted for that, or
never
gave it any other consideration that became the basis for Bush's attack
ads
that said that Kerry supported a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. Complete BS
from an
admin that is all about BS.

Again, if you find my statements factually flawed please let me know,
because
sometimes they are, and I rather be corrected that continue to sound
like a
fool! In that I'm close to the exact opposite of the President.

Rocky

Okay, now you are starting to bore me. Both sides can come up with numbers
to try and make a case. It's like the three blind men asked to feel an
elehant and then describe what it looks like. Your numbers are like little
snipits in time, that doesn't come near to painting a true picture of
anything. I respect your right to your opinions though.
Good bye,
Brian

 

[Rolavine]

From: "Brian" bellis350@comcast.net

Okay, now you are starting to bore me. Both sides can come up with numbers
to try and make a case. It's like the three blind men asked to feel an
elehant and then describe what it looks like. Your numbers are like little
snipits in time, that doesn't come near to painting a true picture of
anything. I respect your right to your opinions though.

Hey I'm an engineer I use numbers, I don't abuse numbers (That incident with
the number 4 was only a temporary thing and I'm taking medication for it now),
I leave that to the politicians!

Say is calling real data an opinion the basis for being a neocon? Yeah thanks,
it all makes sense to me now!

Rocky
Rocky

 

[Fred Bloggs]

Product developer wrote:

I had a feeling you were on welfare. Anyone that has this much time to
post so many immature and unstimulating posts had to be both
unemployable and stupid.

Take a look at your boys Seim and Clarence (Gathright), both on
government handouts , and both with worthless p.o.s. posts. Then there
is the flag-waver contingent in yourself, loser.