On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:


"Lazy Senior" wrote in message
news:J9Nff.1009$792.780@trnddc08...

Carefull, Bush supporters are a bit testy these days......

Lazy Senior

Better watch it. They are talking about cutting back on
the food stamp program. It might be back to catfood
for you.





Canned at that!

"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:


"Lazy Senior" wrote in message
news:J9Nff.1009$792.780@trnddc08...

Carefull, Bush supporters are a bit testy these days......

Lazy Senior

Better watch it. They are talking about cutting back on
the food stamp program. It might be back to catfood
for you.





Canned at that!

ah the conservatives always bring it down to this level when they have
nothing else to say.

randy

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:19:53 -0700, "xrongor"
wrote:


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:


"Lazy Senior" wrote in message
news:J9Nff.1009$792.780@trnddc08...

Carefull, Bush supporters are a bit testy these days......

Lazy Senior

Better watch it. They are talking about cutting back on
the food stamp program. It might be back to catfood
for you.





Canned at that!

ah the conservatives always bring it down to this level when they have
nothing else to say.

randy




Well said Mr. Liberal! Want to share the cat food?

"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:19:53 -0700, "xrongor"
wrote:


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:


"Lazy Senior" wrote in message
news:J9Nff.1009$792.780@trnddc08...

Carefull, Bush supporters are a bit testy these days......

Lazy Senior

Better watch it. They are talking about cutting back on
the food stamp program. It might be back to catfood
for you.





Canned at that!

ah the conservatives always bring it down to this level when they have
nothing else to say.

randy




Well said Mr. Liberal! Want to share the cat food?

see what i mean?

randy

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:39:20 -0700, "xrongor"
wrote:


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:19:53 -0700, "xrongor"
wrote:


"Beerbarrel" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:59:50 -0500, " Uncle Peter"
wrote:


"Lazy Senior" wrote in message
news:J9Nff.1009$792.780@trnddc08...

Carefull, Bush supporters are a bit testy these days......

Lazy Senior

Better watch it. They are talking about cutting back on
the food stamp program. It might be back to catfood
for you.





Canned at that!

ah the conservatives always bring it down to this level when they have
nothing else to say.

randy




Well said Mr. Liberal! Want to share the cat food?

see what i mean?

randy



Uh....no....You don't like cat food?

xrongor wrote:


ah the conservatives always bring it down to this level when they have
nothing else to say.

randy




Well said Mr. Liberal! Want to share the cat food?


see what i mean?

randy


Randy
You are a breath of fresh air in this forum. Whenever Conservatives cant
prove you wrong they call you a Liberal or try to ridicule you.

Aint nothing wrong with being a Liberal, nor is there anything wrong
with being a Conservative. They all make mistakes but Bush conservatives
NEVER admit they are wrong or make mistakes. that is why they are so
dangerous...

Lazy Senior

Back to the math, my calculations show that a $9 trillion total
national debt with 300 million people is $30,000 for every man, woman
and child - from babies in the cradle to old people, taxpaying or not.
Family of 4, that's $120,000 owed to the nation's creditors.

If the war costs $200 billion (pulled that out of my butt, but it's way
more than the initial $87B), that's $666 for every man, woman and
child. Nice round number huh. :-)

I wonder what the vote would have been if it had not been in Congress
but by a vote of the people, worded thus, "Should the government charge
you $666 for each man, woman and child in your household, to attack a
country that has never attacked the United States, with whom we are not
currently at war? BTW this is in addition to the current war in
Afganistan."

It would have been 299 million against.

Tox

toxcrusadr wrote:



I wonder what the vote would have been if it had not been in Congress
but by a vote of the people, worded thus, "Should the government charge
you $666 for each man, woman and child in your household, to attack a
country that has never attacked the United States, with whom we are not
currently at war?


And what if they had worded thus "Would you be willing to pay $666 so
that we can begin breaking up the radical muslim gang of thugs that just
killed 4000 innocent Americans and threaten to kill more?"

There are people who spend more than $666 year at Starbucks.

-BM

Bill wrote:




And what if they had worded thus "Would you be willing to pay $666 so
that we can begin breaking up the radical muslim gang of thugs that just
killed 4000 innocent Americans and threaten to kill more?"


-BM

Dont try to re-write history, the Iraq War had nothing to do with 9-11

Lazy Senior

toxcrusadr wrote:


I wonder what the vote would have been if it had not been in Congress
but by a vote of the people, worded thus, "Should the government charge
you $666 for each man, woman and child in your household, to attack a
country that has never attacked the United States, with whom we are not
currently at war? BTW this is in addition to the current war in
Afganistan."

It would have been 299 million against.

Tox


Add to that: In addition to the $$ cost, your son, grandson, husband,
brother may die.......

Lazy Senior