PDA

View Full Version : The Dems will not be happy.....



eg8r
10-03-2003, 10:17 AM
There are a few things you will not see in the news tonight... <ul type="square"> Clinton left the American economy in a recession. Bush led the US out of the recession. The economy has been growing quite steadily. The single major yardstick for the economy is the GDP, and that has risen by 4%+ the past 2 quarters and is expected to continue. The last issue to come around after a recession are jobs. Guess what..... HERE COME THE JOBS!!!!!!!! (http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/03/news/economy/jobs/index.htm)
[/list]
I am not saying this is the end and the economy is back. What I am saying is that this will not make the Dems happy because while Bush is in office the economy is coming back to life. This is not happening in spite of Bush but rather because of Bush. His tax cuts are working and it is showing.

So, to help worsen the Dems future we can add to the list... <ul type="square"> Bush brought us out of Clinton's recession Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation. Bush won the war in Ashcanistan. Bush won the war in Iraq. And now, Bush is reviving our economy. [/list] And what are the Dems doing...Fighting with each other. What a joke.

eg8r

Qtec
10-03-2003, 10:37 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush brought us out of Clinton's recession <font color="blue">
Can you remind me how much the debt is this year? </font color>
Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation.
<font color="blue"> What , you mean he flew around the country because he didnt know what to do? </font color>
Bush won the war in Ashcanistan.
<font color="blue"> So its all over in Afghanistan.This is news! </font color>
Bush won the war in Iraq.
<font color="blue"> This IS news. What do you think it costs for two weeks at the Baghdad Hilton ? </font color>
And now, Bush is reviving our economy.
<font color="blue"> Lets see, 8 bad months and one reasonable one. Enemployment is now much higher than it was by Clinton. </font color>
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
10-03-2003, 10:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Bush brought us out of Clinton's recession
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mindless dribblings from Q:</font><hr> Can you remind me how much the debt is this year? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Could you learn the difference between recession and debt?



I wasn't going to read the rest of your post figuring it would not make any more sense than the dribble I just quoted...but to my amusement I read on, and not to my surprise the dribble continued...
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mindless dribblings from Q:</font><hr> What , you mean he flew around the country because he didnt know what to do?
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> I guess you were not aware of protocol, we will chalk this up to ignorance.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Bush won the war in Ashcanistan.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mindless dribblings from Q:</font><hr> So its all over in Afghanistan.This is news! <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Learn to read. This is an ongoing problem with you. Where does it say all issues have been resolved and the people of Ashcanistan are now running their own country? What I said was the war was over and won. Now the rebuilding process will begin.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Bush won the war in Iraq.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mindless dribblings from Q:</font><hr> This IS news. What do you think it costs for two weeks at the Baghdad Hilton ? <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Once again. If you can muster it, read my description above, it still applies.

Did you have the same foolish remarks at the end of WWII when we were still in Japan or Germany? Was everything safe right after those wars? I don't think so.

I am sure this might seem like an attack on your intelligence (or reading comprehension at the very least), but don't you think you lend yourself to these things. Come on, these quotes of yours are ridiculous. Do you think before you post? Do you even bother to read and maybe comprehend what was typed before you reply???????

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> And now, Bush is reviving our economy.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote mindless dribblings from Q:</font><hr> Lets see, 8 bad months and one reasonable one. Enemployment is now much higher than it was by Clinton. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Here to end all your dribble you fully prove the fact that you did not comprehend anything. Go back and read before you respond with mindless dribbling... reviving and completion are not synonyms.

I did not say this was the end of the problems with the economy (you missed this part), I said that the Dems will not be happy to see the economy begin to come back to life. Get off the drugs and read before you speak.

eg8r

Cueless Joey
10-03-2003, 01:23 PM
I wish I can look far enough to see the national economy.
The economy here in California is so ruined, smoke gets in my eyes. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
10-04-2003, 12:41 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The labor market has been mired in its longest slump since World War II, with payrolls 2.7 million jobs lighter than they were in March 2001, when the latest recession began. Though the recession ended in November 2001, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there has been no consistent job growth <hr /></blockquote>

Clinton,s recession????

[ QUOTE ]
Monday, 26 November, 2001, 22:06 GMT
US officially enters recession


The US recession, which observers worldwide have predicted for months, has officially begun.
The National Bureau of Economic Research, an official panel of senior economists, has declared that the US entered recession in March this year.



Since then, the decline in the US economy has been further undermined by the 11 September terrorist attacks on Washington and New York.

The US economy has suffered 10 recessions since the end of World War II, the last of which was in March 1991.

The past 10 years of economic growth have been the longest period of expansion in US history, the NBER said.

July recovery

But the US economy is likely to recover by July 2002 according to information on previous post-war recessions, NBER committee member Ben Bernanke said.

"Based on past experience, we expect the turnaround to begin anytime from now until July," Mr Bernanke told the BBC's World Business Report.


The last US recession stretched from the middle of 1990 to March 1991 after which the record period of expansion began.

The NBER scrutinises monthly figures for employment, income, industrial output and wholesale and retail trade.

Other economists technically define a recession as a six month period of negative growth.

Senate action needed

"We will do everything we can to enhance a recovery," said President George W Bush, whose father lost the White House partly as a result of the last US recession.

The White House on Monday renewed its appeal for the Senate to pass an economic stimulus plan.<hr /></blockquote>

Still think I am the one who cant read?

I would say that it is most likely that GW,s tax cuts have nothing to do with this upturn.


A lucky break? for GW on the day that the they report that they cannot find any WMD.

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
10-04-2003, 07:17 AM
Here is another article (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml) you might want to read. Just so you know, it takes a little longer than a year for a new president to drive us into a recession. But, Bill had 8 years to do it, and look at what happened.

Yes, I still stand by what I said. The argument was not your ability to read, it was your ability to comprehend, and you have confirmed it again.

What about the other issues from my post? Did you want to let those go by, maybe we could forget about it?

eg8r

Qtec
10-04-2003, 12:59 PM
is there any point [ as if I didnt already know] in discussing anything with you. You cannot even regognize the truth.

Last time.

[ QUOTE ]
There are a few things you will not see in the news tonight... <font color="blue">I saw it! </font color>
Clinton left the American economy in a recession. <font color="blue"> Lie,lie,lie. </font color>
Bush led the US out of the recession. <font color="blue"> Wrong. </font color>
The economy has been growing quite steadily. <font color="blue"> Thats not what they said 3 months ago. </font color>
The single major yardstick for the economy is the GDP, and that has risen by 4%+ the past 2 quarters and is expected to continue. <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Productivity has risen, manufacturing jobs actually fell. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Bush brought us out of Clinton's recession <font color="blue"> ??? </font color>
Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation. <font color="blue"> If you say so. </font color>
Bush won the war in Ashcanistan. <font color="blue"> No. </font color>
Bush won the war in Iraq. <font color="blue"> No. </font color>
And now, Bush is reviving our economy <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> Grasping at straws. </font color>

Now what issue are you talking about?

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
10-04-2003, 08:37 PM
Finally you answered some questions...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q in blue, eg8r in black and orange:</font><hr> There are a few things you will not see in the news tonight... <font color="blue"> I saw it! </font color> <font color="orange"> Saw what??? There are a bunch on the list did you see each one, if so then why are you saying wrong </font color>
Clinton left the American economy in a recession. <font color="blue">Lie,lie,lie. </font color> <font color="orange">You are right, Clinton LED the country into recession, we just did not see it till Bush was actually in office. It does take a couple quarters of consecutive loss for it to be a recession.</font color>
Bush led the US out of the recession. <font color="blue">Wrong. </font color> <font color="orange">Go back and read the definintion of a recession and tell me if we are in one or out. If we are out, open your eyes and tell me who the President is.</font color>
The economy has been growing quite steadily. <font color="blue">Thats not what they said 3 months ago.</font color><font color="orange">Last quarter the GDP experienced a 4% growth, it did the same this quarter. Sounds like growing steadily to me, and that includes 6 months. A lot more than your suggested 3. Also, if you would pull your head out of the liberal news' butts for once and do a little homework you might be able to read between the lines. At that point, I don't know what you will do because your comprehension of the english language has been proven quite poor. I guess though, that you believe some floosy with a communications degree is knowledgeable enough to correctly explain our nations economy to you. If that is enough education for you to believe it, then you deserve yourself. </font color>
The single major yardstick for the economy is the GDP, and that has risen by 4%+ the past 2 quarters and is expected to continue. <font color="orange"> You never answered to this question, what happened? Cannot find a good enough quote from the BBC??????</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

You might feel like I am not willing to listen to you side of the story or listen to a Dem but you are wrong. I do listen, and when you are done I make a reply. Most of the time your reply has so little foundation to stand on. Did you even read the quoted article I posted. If you did, please post quotes from the article that you disagree with, and then give reason for disagreeing. Surely you could do that, couldn't you. I posted recession was Clintons fault and then gave you a perfect example as to why. There were excellent arguments in that article. If you think they are wrong or biased or Dem bashing, THEN POINT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q in blue, eg in orange:</font><hr> Bush brought us out of Clinton's recession <font color="blue">??? </font color><font color="orange">Yup, it was explained quite well in the article I posted. Did you bother to read it?</font color>
Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation. <font color="blue">If you say so.</font color><font color="orange">I did say so.</font color>
Bush won the war in Ashcanistan. <font color="blue">No.</font color><font color="orange">Are you going through some sort of bout with ignorance???? So you are saying the Taliban won???? Just because are troops are still there, does not mean the WAR is still going on. Get off the drugs.</font color>
Bush won the war in Iraq. <font color="blue">No. </font color>[color=orange]More ignorance. I guess Saddam is just chilling out in Baghdad in one of his suites watching his sons murder innocent people. They are still in control RIGHT???? Come on Q, who is in control of that country???? Do you think Saddam is still calling the shots??? No one else in the world does????</font color>

And now, Bush is reviving our economy <font color="orange">Well, cat got your tongue, you did not answer this one???</font color> <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote q:</font><hr> Grasping at straws.
<hr /></blockquote> What straws???? Who is in control in Ashcanistan, Taliban or US? This is simple and you should be able to handle it. One word answer will suffice and should contain one of the options you were given....Taliban or US. There is no other possibility, so choose one of those.

In Iraq, who is in control, Saddam and his children, or US. This should be easy considering you should have followed the rules in the previous question. If you do not remember the rules, pick one. Only choose one of the two options. That would be SADDAM or US. Please don't make this too complicated, you should have no problem.

eg8r

L.S. Dennis
10-05-2003, 07:26 PM
Q
Real short, I agree with most of what you say. Bush flying around from spot to spot like a scared rabbit after the 9-11 attack was a real joke. Of my fifty + years of life here in America this is the worst president this country has had to my recollection.

Qtec
10-06-2003, 01:36 AM
I think it shows that he is not his own man. First it was claimed that there was a warning that GW was a target, later they had to admit this wasnt true.

He cant or isnt allowed to make a decision on his own.

As for GW,s foreign policy....... I found this quotation.

[ QUOTE ]
“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.”

— Friedrich Nietzsche
19th-century philosopher
<hr /></blockquote>

Q

Qtec
10-07-2003, 04:19 AM
[ QUOTE ]
For those who inhabit a world outside of the Parliamentary lobby, the views expressed by Meacher as to the way the whole 9/11 scenario and what followed so easily fitted with the Bush administration's agenda is anything but conspiratorial. In his piece Meacher quoted from sources across the media including the Times, the Daily Telegraph, Newsweek, the BBC and Time magazine. His crime for establishment journalists is in putting together the various pieces of information to come up with a credible rationale for what has happened over the past two years. The fact that the account seems so incredible is reflective of how poorly others in the have done their jobs in terms of informing the public.

Meacher is not the first to raise questions regarding the sequence of events post-9/11. John Pilger and Noam Chomsky have consistently exposed the truth and put the sequence of events of the past two years in context. Another is American writer, and former confidante of President John F Kennedy, Gore Vidal who in the Observer last year suggested that George W Bush will be impeached for his handling of 9/11 and events thereafter. In his excellent book, Dreaming War, Vidal continues to ask crucial questions that until recently have been swept under the carpet. He quotes at some length from retired US army veteran Stan Goff, who taught military science and doctrine at West Point.

Goff is astonished that people are not asking questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the attacks. As some will remember Bush went to a school on that day to talk to the children. In the US there is a standard order of procedure that once a plane has deviated from its flight plan - fighter planes are sent up to find out why. "The planes are all hijacked between 7.45 and 8.10am eastern daylight time. Who is notified? This is an event already that is unprecedented. But the president is not notified and going to a Florida elementary school to hear children read," says Goff. "By around 8.15am it should be very apparent that something is terribly wrong. The President is glad-handing teachers. By 8.45 when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the World Trade Centre, Bush is settling in with children for his photo ops at Booker Elementary. Four planes have obviously been hijacked simultaneously, an event never before seen in history, and one has just dived into the world's best-known twin towers, and still no-one notifies the nominal Commander in Chief."

At 9.03 the second plane crashes into the World Trade Center, Bush is told but continues with his school visit. Some 25 minutes later Bush tells the public what they know already namely, that there has been an attack by hijack planes on the World Trade Center. At this time there is an airliner heading for Washington but still no fighter planes have been scrambled.

At 9.35 one of the hijacked planes does a 360 degree turn over the Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar. "The Pentagon is not evacuated, and there are still no fast movers from the Air Force in the sky over Alexandria and DC," says Goff.

This is the staggering story of the events of 9/11. No reasons have been given for the Bush administration's conduct on that day, no one has been brought to account. Yet from the tragedy that was 9/11 Bush has been able to deliver for his backers in the arms and oil industries. The President has also been able to portray himself as a wartime leader. This is the real story that journalists should be probing at and uncovering, not decrying the likes of Meacher who has at least had the guts to stand up and say what many have suspected for some time.

Other untold stories from around the time of 9/11 concern the failure of Bush to sanitise the area around the twin towers and the fate of the heroic firefighters. After a recent visit to New York journalist Mike Marqusee told of how when the World Trade Centre was hit, the shoddy materials used to build the structure back in the 1970s were spread far and wide. These materials included asbestos and other lethal substances. Rather than close down the area, where much of US business dwells, the Bush administration preferred instead to keep quiet and risk public health. The result of this piece of negligence will become apparent in future years.


<hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
10-07-2003, 04:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush reacted very well to Sept 9/11 and won over a lot of people with the way he handled the situation<hr /></blockquote>



Why the lies George ??????



[ QUOTE ]
Bin Ladens evacuated from U.S. after 9-11
Former White House official confirms operation said to be rumor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 4, 2003
5:00 p.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians – including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden – who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.

While the Saudis have long denied involvement in the massacre that claimed the lives of some 3,000 people, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from the kingdom.

Former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke described the Saudi exodus in an interview for the current issue of Vanity Fair on newsstands today. Clarke, who left the White House in February, lends confirmation to reports of the evacuation which first surfaced in September 2001, but have been dispelled as rumor and urban legend .

Citing Clarke, the magazine reports that within a week of the hijackings private planes picked up individuals from 10 cities, including Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Houston and Boston. Aviation officials complained the flights took place before the government had lifted flight restrictions for the general public. <font color="blue"> !!!! </font color>

"We were in the midst of the worst terrorist act in history and here we were seeing an evacuation of the bin Ladens. ... I wanted to go the highest levels in Washington," Tom Kinton, director of aviation at Boston's Logan International Airport, told the magazine. Kinton said it was clear the operation had the blessings of federal authorities.

Once the flight ban was lifted, two jumbo jets transported the Saudis out of the country. The Boston Globe reported at the time that two flights bound for Saudi Arabia with members of the bin Laden clan on board left Logan on Sept. 18 and 19. Other reports put the departure date at Sept. 14.

Clarke said the Saudis feared they "would be targeted for retribution" by Americans after the hijackings. According to the Globe, a Saudi diplomat said the relatives of bin Laden had been advised by both the Saudi government and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to return to Saudi Arabia at least temporarily for their own safety.

Bin Laden is said to be estranged from his family.

"Somebody brought to us for approval the decision to let an airplane filled with Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, leave the country," Clarke, who headed the Counterrorism Security Group of the National Security Council, told Vanity Fair. He said he did not recall who requested approval for the flight, but believes it was either the FBI or the State Department. He said he, in turn, checked with FBI officials, who gave the go ahead.

"So I said, 'Fine, let it happen,'"
<hr /></blockquote>

The State Dept gave the OK, not the FBI, as it turns out.

When the Saudi's say jump, GW says "how high".

The country that had most to fear from Saddam was Saudi Arabia.
Q

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2003, 06:25 AM
So if fighters had shot down the planes you would now be calling Bush a murderer rather than a liar. You know it's true. We need to put you in charge of the military...not /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
10-07-2003, 06:28 AM
You are right. Q doesn't know what he wants.

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2003, 06:36 AM
Hey Q, you are avoiding some questions...Let me repost them up here higher in the thread so you can find them...

You have stated I lied about Bush winning two wars. So, I posted these two questions for you. These questions are very direct and straightforward pertaining only to the two wars I was referring to (I am guessing maybe you thought I meant the war on drugs or the war on poverty, I am not sure but this should clear it up for everyone).

The questions should be simple for you to answer, but you have avoided them and brought up the same dumb "lie" issue again. We can deal with that issue, but lets go one at a time. Here are the two questions. I have made it easy for you by giving you only 2 choices (the answer is there just pick one). If I was lying and Bush did not win the war, then the governments before the war should be in place right now...Here are the questions....

[ QUOTE ]
Who is in control in Ashcanistan, Taliban or US? This is simple and you should be able to handle it. One word answer will suffice and should contain one of the options you were given....Taliban or US. There is no other possibility, so choose one of those.

In Iraq, who is in control, Saddam and his children, or US. This should be easy considering you should have followed the rules in the previous question. If you do not remember the rules, pick one. Only choose one of the two options. That would be SADDAM or US. Please don't make this too complicated, you should have no problem.
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Qtec
10-07-2003, 07:29 AM
I did not say that you wre lying. You simply repeated "the lie" that the War has been won. Just like GW, its only a lie if you know it to be a lie. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You ask a question and say I have to pick one of the two answers that YOU provide.

Read this. web page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3166566.stm)


The last two lines, [ QUOTE ]
Much of Afghanistan is lawless and President Hamid Karzai's administration has little control outside the capital, Kabul <hr /></blockquote> .

Who is in control is relative.

Iraq, yes, Saddam is no longer in control, but does that mean the War is over?
How can you be in control when its not safe for an American to walk down the street? Or anybody for that matter.

I think in your rush to praise GW, you give him too much credit for things he claims to have done, not for what has really happened.

I agree terrorism is a threat and something has to be done. I just dont agree that GW,s way is the way to do it.

Q

eg8r
10-07-2003, 08:24 AM
Thanks for the article. I guess, if you place enough weight on Amnesty International's opinion then that will be enough for you. I know nothing about that group so what they have to say right now means very little to me. This is not to say that my stance on that will change once I know more about the group, but right now it means little to nothing. I will also add, that the article is coming from the BBC. That really says enough for me. The BBC has taken the stance to only show the negative stuff that has/is happening. They have not given credit where credit is due. Bush Sr., Clinton, and the UN were never able to remove Saddam, and the entire Russian military was unable to remove the Taliban from control. Credit is due. Bush has done both in a very short amount of time. You will not hear that from the BBC or the rest of the liberal media.

The fact is, Saddam is not in control. Bush won. One goal was to remove Saddam and his sons. Second fact is that the Taliban is removed from control. Whether or not every single issue has been resolved does not matter. The overlying factor is that Taliban are not in control. Anything they are doing can be classified as terrorism. They are committing terror on the Afghan women.

Give me some examples of past wars in which a government was overthrown and the war was not considered successful for the prevailing government. This is what has happened...US and allies have overthrown the Husseins and the Taliban. Why would you not consider that a successful war? There are always little battles in the end to clean things up, but that is all they are...little battles. The overall war has been completed and won, when the government is toppled and thrown out.

eg8r

pooltchr
10-07-2003, 09:46 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Q
Of my fifty + years of life here in America this is the worst president this country has had to my recollection. <hr /></blockquote>

Are we forgetting Mr Carter? (Or just TRYING to forget?)

Qtec
10-07-2003, 09:55 AM
Wait a minute!

[ QUOTE ]
I will also add, that the article is coming from the BBC. That really says enough for me. The BBC has taken the stance to only show the negative stuff that has/is happening <hr /></blockquote>


This really shows the power of propoganda. Before GW became President, the BBC was one of the most, if not THE most respected TV and news stations in the world.
Its a scandal that GW and Co have tried to trash the BBC ,only because they reported what they saw and not what they were told to say. Nobody owns the BBC. They are non-political. They report the stories that are not allowed to run on US tv, ie. the 'rescue' of Pvte Lynch. GW and Dad,s links with the Bin Ladens , Carlyle Club and Tulia. A story that was huge and you didnt even know about when it happened 200 miles from you. The BBC did a docu and in an interview lasting 15 minutes caught him on 10 lies and a number of impossibilities.
I still cant believe that it actually happened.
He has been charged I think. I will look out for his trial, if it ever comes.

Q

Did you read my post on the Saudis behaviour after 9/11. I would have thought that it would have been prudent to question these people at length considering that they are Bin Laden,s family. Dont you think?
Q

eg8r
10-07-2003, 10:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This really shows the power of propoganda. Before GW became President, the BBC was one of the most, if not THE most respected TV and news stations in the world. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, you crack me up. I did not mention GW and you put your foot in your mouth. Go back to the quote you have there and show me where it says GW. Get a life Q, you are arguing something that is not there.

I made reference to the BBC not posting any of the good that has come out of the war. If they do post positive things, it is posted as a result of all the bad. Sorry but that is how it is. This has nothing to do with GW. It is the BBC that chooses how to portray their news. They choose the harbour on the bad.

Your scandal issue is funny. If I was to say the BBC sucks, you would blame the Bush administration for saying the BBC sucks. In case you are stuck in a hole, the American media is predominantly liberal.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2003, 11:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

....Nobody owns the BBC. They are non-political. .......<hr /></blockquote>

Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

aaah ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

Wally~~ with tears streaming down cheeks.

Wally_in_Cincy
10-07-2003, 11:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote L.S. Dennis:</font><hr> Q
Of my fifty + years of life here in America this is the worst president this country has had to my recollection. <hr /></blockquote>

Are we forgetting Mr Carter? (Or just TRYING to forget?) <hr /></blockquote>

and Nixon

and LBJ

I'd take Dubya over any of those three.