Re: George Bush and Michael Jackson: A Comparison

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Siegfriedson said:

The charges against Michael Jackson provide a humorous counterpoint
and backdrop for a discussion of the charges against George W. Bush.

You know what they say that Michael Jackson does to little boys. In a
sense, George Bush does the same thing to Americans. Think about it.

What, exactly, does George Bush do to Americans?

1) Bush uses them. Work harder, American slaves. George Bush has

spent

Quoted message said:

close to $200 billion on the Iraq war and conservative estimates are
that "nation building" there is costing us an additional $4 billion
per month. That's money you'll never see again. Disabled American

vets

Quoted message said:

need new hospitals? Forget it. We've got to remake the Middle East

for

Quoted message said:

Israel.

2) What does George Bush do to Americans? He abuses them. Why should
Israel fight her own wars, when George can trick Americans into
fighting them for her? Defend America's borders? Hell, no. George has
got more important things for our troops to do.

3) What does George Bush do to Americans? He lies to them. He said we
were fighting a war on terror, but America is less safe than at any
time in our history. The Afghans and the Iraqis and the Arabs hate us
more than ever, our borders are almost unguarded, most of our allies
have abandoned us, and George and his neocon handlers are making
enemies for America faster than you can say "weapons of mass
destruction."

Continued:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4106

Bush's failure to seal our southern border is criminal. Each day the
toll, both human and economic, mounts.

les

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-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 =----

no cross posts wanted

TYpical lib, blame the conservative in power........you lost [censored]!!

"Jim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Siegfriedson said:

The charges against Michael Jackson provide a humorous counterpoint
and backdrop for a discussion of the charges against George W. Bush.

You know what they say that Michael Jackson does to little boys. In a
sense, George Bush does the same thing to Americans. Think about it.

What, exactly, does George Bush do to Americans?

1) Bush uses them. Work harder, American slaves. George Bush has

spent

Quoted message said:

close to $200 billion on the Iraq war and conservative estimates are
that "nation building" there is costing us an additional $4 billion
per month. That's money you'll never see again. Disabled American

vets

Quoted message said:

need new hospitals? Forget it. We've got to remake the Middle East

for

Quoted message said:

Israel.

2) What does George Bush do to Americans? He abuses them. Why should
Israel fight her own wars, when George can trick Americans into
fighting them for her? Defend America's borders? Hell, no. George has
got more important things for our troops to do.

3) What does George Bush do to Americans? He lies to them. He said we
were fighting a war on terror, but America is less safe than at any
time in our history. The Afghans and the Iraqis and the Arabs hate us
more than ever, our borders are almost unguarded, most of our allies
have abandoned us, and George and his neocon handlers are making
enemies for America faster than you can say "weapons of mass
destruction."

Continued:

http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=4106

Bush's failure to seal our southern border is criminal. Each day the
toll, both human and economic, mounts.

les

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

of no interest here

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

Be fair - a little cut in Social Security and we'll have enough money
to go round, surely?

:-)

Brian W

"swami" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax

cuts

Quoted message said:

(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

Explain, hard as that might be for you, just how allowing someone to keep
what is his can be construed to be a cost? Not confiscating the product of
someone's labors is usually considered by the cognoscenti to be far more
productive than grabbing it and giving it to the most strident constituency.

Tax cuts are for those who pay taxes. Sniveling about it is for those who do
not.

The war, this war, any war, costs only the fuel burnt and the scrap value of
the stuff being thrown back and forth. If that.

Perhaps someday when you grow up and then reach the age of reason you might
be able to comprehend this.

--
Terry

You can accomplish more with a smile and a gun
than just a smile.

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax
cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:06:48 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax
cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:06:48 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax
>cuts
>(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.
>
How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not
that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

The revenue was sucked out, and that was money. Semantics, I guess.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:18:05 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:06:48 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax
>>cuts
>>(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.
>>
> How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not
that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

The revenue was sucked out, and that was money. Semantics, I guess.

No, not at all. How can something get sucked out of somewhere if it
was never there to begin with? The government is taking less of a
percentage from where it gets most of it's money. Now the government
needs to spend less.

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:18:05 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:06:48 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>news:[email hidden]...
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the
>>>tax
>>>cuts
>>>(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.
>>>
>> How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?
>
>It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
>Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
>carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not
>that
>they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.
>
But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

The revenue was sucked out, and that was money. Semantics, I guess.

No, not at all. How can something get sucked out of somewhere if it
was never there to begin with? The government is taking less of a
percentage from where it gets most of it's money. Now the government
needs to spend less.

It was there. It was in the budget before the tax cut, taxes were reduced
and expenditures increased. That's Republican economics. Sucks for the
country as a whole, good for their buddies for the short term at least.

Brian Whatcott said:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

Be fair - a little cut in Social Security and we'll have enough money
to go round, surely?

:-)

Brian W

They had better not cut MY SSD

Phill

John Hanson said:

"swami" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

Quoted message said:

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost
anything?

Tell your Landlord that you won't pay for living on his
property. You just want to keep more of your money, and
it won't cost him anything....

http://responsiblewealth.org/
http://ctj.org/

--
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that
matter." -- Martin Luther King Jr.

"God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them. And then
he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
-- George W. Bush

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the
Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
-- Adolf [censored]

"The tsunami was a wonderful opportunity to show not just the
US government, but the heart of the American people, and I think
it has paid great dividends for us." Condoleezza Rice

"One of the things we don't want to do is destroy the
infrastructure in Iraq because in a few days we're going
to own that country," - Tom Brokaw

Cost of probing Bill Clinton's sex life: $65 million.
Cost of probing the Columbia shuttle disaster: $50 million.
Funds assigned to independent Sept. 11 panel: $3 million.

http://www.commondreams.org/
http://www.truthout.org/
http://counterpunch.org/

"After all, it is the leaders of the country who determine
the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the
bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to
do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country
to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, President of the Reichstag, Nazi Party, and
Luftwaffe Commander in Chief

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is
not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

"You know, when bu$h said that he's against nation building,
I didn't realize that he meant only the United States"
-- Al Franken

Don't let bu$h do to the United States what his very close
friend and top campaign contributor, Ken Lay, did to Enron...

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:38:39 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 06:18:05 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:06:48 -0500, "ATP*" <[email hidden]> wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"John Hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 19:44:45 -0600, "swami" <[email hidden]>
>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the
>>>>tax
>>>>cuts
>>>>(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.
>>>>
>>> How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?
>>
>>It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
>>Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
>>carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not
>>that
>>they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.
>>
> But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
> revenue cannot "suck money out".
>
The revenue was sucked out, and that was money. Semantics, I guess.

No, not at all. How can something get sucked out of somewhere if it
was never there to begin with? The government is taking less of a
percentage from where it gets most of it's money. Now the government
needs to spend less.

It was there. It was in the budget before the tax cut, taxes were reduced
and expenditures increased. That's Republican economics. Sucks for the
country as a whole, good for their buddies for the short term at least.

This country needs to go on a "diet" so that those producing all the
wealth can keep more of it.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:05:58 -0500, Hank <"stopbu$h"@war.crimes> wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

John Hanson said:

"swami" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But the war isn't the biggest thing sucking the money out . . . the tax cuts
(to the rich) are about twice what the war costs.

Quoted message said:

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost
anything?

Tell your Landlord that you won't pay for living on his
property. You just want to keep more of your money, and
it won't cost him anything....

I don't have a landlord. I'm a homeowner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

How's the deficit doing?

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:06:52 -0600, [email hidden] (Don)
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?

It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not that
they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.

But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

How's the deficit doing?

Not very well. We need to slash spending.

Quoting John Hanson <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 23:06:52 -0600, [email hidden] (Don)
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> How can letting people keep more of their own money cost anything?
>
>It costs money when the shortfall has to be made up by borrowing, since
>Voodoo Economics is failing us once again. If you read the statement
>carefully, the OP claims the tax cuts are "sucking the money out", not that
>they are a cost, only that they amount to twice what the war costs.
>
But that is wrong. Spending is "sucking the money out". Lack of
revenue cannot "suck money out".

How's the deficit doing?

Not very well. We need to slash spending.

Entitlements need to be cut to the bone.