View Single Post
  #34   Report Post  
Old March 18th 09, 01:08 AM posted to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.radio.shortwave,alt.news-media
B.O. Jr. B.O. Jr. is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by RadioBanter: Mar 2009
Posts: 5
Default How to Silence Talk Radio

Billy Burpelson wrote:


Billy Burpelson wrote:

Billy Burpelson wrote:

obamao.[RUDENESS and vulgarity wrote:

ObaMa0 Destroyed 45% of World's Wealth.
45%? The whole WORLD? In only seven lousy WEEKS???? (For
someone who thinks O is so incompetent, you sure give him a lot
of credit!)

And predecessor Bush gets a free pass for the last eight
YEARS????

(Especially since the Bush loving, Republican Wall Street
Journal says this mess started on Bush's watch).

BWAHAHAHAhaha.... donkey brain, you're a riot! :-)
B.O. Jr. wrote:

Everything started to crash and burn in 2007 when Pelosi and Reid
took over the Congress.


Well, first of all, 2007 WAS on Bush's watch, totally refuting
donkey brain's contention that Obama did it in 7 -weeks- (which you
will recall was the original thread).


B.O. Jr. wrote:

Let's go back to elementary civics. Congress spends the money, makes
the laws and performs oversight. Obumma authorized the spending to
double the debt in just seven weeks.


So, are you saying that authorizing "the spending to double the [U.S.]
debt in just seven weeks" is the same as *destroying* 45% of the
*WORLD'S* wealth as stated by the OP? Quite a leap, don't you think?


Not really since the Obumma team promises more bailouts and "stimulus"
bills plus Obumma has destroyed the confidence level of Wall Street
with all his crisis talk.

Pelosi and Reid notwithstanding, what happened to Bush's veto
power? Why didn't Bush "just say no"?


B.O. Jr. wrote:

That was his [Bush's] problem.


Exactly my point. Bush could have nipped it in the bud and he didn't.


I see the Dems were not so concerned with spending during Bush'
tenure. The only spending they whined about was defense spending.

Do you know what a tagline is?


On my news reader, most 'tag lines' are presented in a different font
and/or a lighter density, making it very clear that it is a tag line.


Thunderbird a newsreader? Reading Usenet is just an additional option
on an email client. All dedicated newsreaders have a tagline option.

Your so-called tag line was the same size, font and
density as your regular text, thus rendering it virtually
indistinguishable from being interpreted as part of your regular post.
Are you a neophyte to Usenet, not knowing how to properly encode your
tag line so that it is *clearly* understood as such?


My tagline is separated by a "-" from the rest of the body of the
message. Some people use other separators or some dedicated
newsreaders like Gravity have a separator built in. Those dedicated
newsreaders all do have an option called a sig. file which is used for
taglines. Multiple fonts and various text sizes are not used in Usenet
protocols, only in email protocols where you can use html code.
Some people on Usenet use tad lines and some don't and if you had
any experience with newsgroups you'd know that.
-

A LIBERAL'S thought on RELIGION.

"The first requisite for the happiness of the people is
the abolition of religion."
-Karl Marx