"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

Lazy Senior wrote:

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

Then you explain to me why the US went into Iraq? To steal the oil from
them? Cuz Saddam threatened to kill Dubya's daddy? To build that
pipeline across the country to the Caspian Sea? (no, wait, that was
Afghanistan). Just to fill the pockets of Dubya and his cronies with cash?

Think like an mature adult. Iraq has nothing directly to do with Bali I
and II, Madrid bombings, London bombings, pushing Irving Klinghoffer off
of a cruise ship in his wheelchair, Beirut hostage taking, chopping off
Daniel Perl's head...on and on for the past 30 years. But what they DID
have was WMDs and a propensity to use them against their own internal
enemies and a sympathy with the nutcases waging war against the West.
Its pretty clear that Saddam's Iraq had the MOST resources at the
disposal of factions like the 9/11 murderers and was a good place to
start.

You cannot separate 9/11 from today's Iraq. The little mini-incidents
that the radical muslims have perpetrated against the West pale in
comparison to the 4000 lives lost right here on US soil. To not do
something about it would be folly. If 9/11 had not occurred, we
wouldn't be there. In that sense Iraq has much to do with 9/11.

I respect the people who must make these bold decisions and the
foot-soldiers obliged to carry out the task. I'm neither a politician
or a military strategist - and subsequently I'm not a Monday Morning
Quarterback calling the game that isn't finished yet. I'm glad this
type of whining "it costs every taxpayer $xxx" didn't happen in 1944.
Back then "Blame America First" wasn't very fashionable.

-Bill

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