|
OT- Could see it coming
Michael W. Bryant, the dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 5, 6:40�am, Bushcraftgregg wrote: No JB- no thicker skin needed, I know what you're saying, I'm just trying/asking him to stop before he gets out of hand. I HAVE seen him out of hand years back, so my statement is valid. He DID email me years back and tried to chum up to me but I'm hip to his type and never responded. Of course, he is going to say he didn't and it's my word against his and that's fine but I would hope the majority or at least the ones I care about in here would believe me over him. IMO him/ his type are the most dangerous types of people to encounter on usenet, he cloaks himself in a veil as "one that would do you no wrong" but I do not buy it because I have seen the opposite of that. I really don't want to speak about it anymore, really I don't. But I know he is just going to keep on - he can't help it. I appreciate you taking up for him, though you will say you weren't etc. etc. but lets just stop it at this. Thanks.- Dear BCBLazySusan, You're a basketcase. And a liar. Yes, Bryant, you are indeed a basketcase! And, a liar as well, PhDufus! If you feel so threatened, why do you feel the need to make OT political posts in a shortwave newsgroup? You just like stirring up trouble and spreading malicious garbage. You're obviously one of those "special Christians" who refuses to practice what he preaches. You must be one of those "special Christians" who feels compelled to lie their fat ass off. Dude, you're such a jerk! Dude, you're such a lying dufus! Earlier in the thread you wrote that I had diclosed confidences from backchannels with you, now you say I wrote you, but you never responded. Gee whiz, that a contradiction! Can you put your little mind in gear and explain how those two posts can be consistent? Is it OK to lie when your target is someone you don't like? If so, I can understand why you are so chummy with Stave Lare. Stave? Keep rolling, dufus! dxAce Michigan USA And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute. They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows, there may be more. |
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height OfIrresponsibilit...
On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon
wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. |
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height Of Irresponsibilit...
In article
, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. The limited trade packs the Reagan administration were in our favor but the follow on expanded trade deals from Bush, Clintoon, Bush were not. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : MWB - More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. - History WillShow President Bill Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTATreaty Becoming LAW [.]
On Mar 6, 5:24*am, Mike wrote:
On Mar 4, 8:23*pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. Come on, RHF, where are the URLs? Mike |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. dxAce Michigan USA And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute. They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows, there may be more dufi there. |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article ,
dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article
, Telamon wrote: In article , Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Well, that would be Carter II with a tele-prompter. Ah! A new moniker "Obama bin Biden" -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
|
(OT) : Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height OfIrresponsibilit...
|
(OT) : I Did Not See It Coming -was- Could See It Coming
~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 5, 5:17 pm, John Barnard wrote: Bushcraftgregg wrote: On Mar 4, 8:51 pm, John Barnard wrote: Bushcraftgregg wrote: On Mar 2, 7:35 am, dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 2, 3:47 am, BCBlazysusan wrote: I can't say I am surprised. Every senator and congressman should be labeled "traitor" and anyone in cahoots should be brought before the people of the USA and judged IMO. I wonder how Hillary felt as the person from China signed this. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0f8_1...r=newest_first If this is genuine and on the up and up, I feel this country has reached the point of no return. Why have I not heard about this on my local news or any other news outlet? "Yes We Can" - - I guess this was the "Change" we were all told about. The fact that you re-post Hal Turner gossip is all anyone needs to know about your brand of Christianity. Please, inform us of the PhDufus brand of Christianity. Don't reply to him Steve, it is just a waste of your time. He literally "gets off" from yanking people and starting trouble on usenet. I may have to speak to you back channel if he keeps harassing me by continuing to respond to my posts, I'm trying to play nice but I have a feeling he is just going to continue. Anything that you post in a PUBLIC forum could be fair game for someone else to put in their 2 cents worth. If you think that's harassment then you may need to get a thicker skin. JB- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - No JB- no thicker skin needed, I know what you're saying, I'm just trying/asking him to stop before he gets out of hand. I HAVE seen him out of hand years back, so my statement is valid. He DID email me years back and tried to chum up to me but I'm hip to his type and never responded. Of course, he is going to say he didn't and it's my word against his and that's fine but I would hope the majority or at least the ones I care about in here would believe me over him. IMO him/ his type are the most dangerous types of people to encounter on usenet, he cloaks himself in a veil as "one that would do you no wrong" but I do not buy it because I have seen the opposite of that. I really don't want to speak about it anymore, really I don't. But I know he is just going to keep on - he can't help it. I appreciate you taking up for him, though you will say you weren't etc. etc. but lets just stop it at this. Thanks. - Unfortunately, as you've probably noticed in this group, - lots of people get out of hand on here (myself included). - It's all part of the game on here. - - JB Dang JB - I am agreeing with you for once. ~ RHF - - - and i did not see it coming . . . . That's the Law of Averages in action ;-) JB |
(OT) : Obama be Bye Bye !
On Mar 6, 4:59*pm, Telamon
wrote: In article , *Telamon wrote: In article , *Telamon wrote: In article , *dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, *he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Well, that would be Carter II with a tele-prompter. - Ah! A new moniker "Obama bin Biden" - - -- - Telamon - Ventura, California Better Obama be Bye Bye ! Impeach Obama Now He's Bad For America and The World Economy |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
Mike wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. Come on, RHF, where are the URLs? Mike Top ten, Mike! The House of Reps approved it 234 to 200 with 132 of those 234 being Republicans and 102 being Democrats. I can't believe RHF's revisionist history and pseudoscience approach to things. JB |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
Telamon wrote:
In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces. JB |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:08 pm, Mike wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. Come on, RHF, where are the URLs? Mike MWB - Your 'logic' is typical of the Liberals who blame the Gun Manufactures for the Killing of by Guns and at the same time; excusing the Criminal for coming from a poor or abusive home. MWB 'again' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . You know nothing of the facts you twisted, little thug. JB |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article ,
John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces. The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms. It didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the obomination's policies are any better. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
On Mar 6, 5:00�pm, "~ RHF" wrote:
Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF While Clinton signed it into law, NAFTA was Reagan's dream. Please note that the following URL is from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies.... |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
Michael W. Bryant, the mentally ill dufus who once laid claim to a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 5:00�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF While Clinton signed it into law, NAFTA was Reagan's dream. Please note that the following URL is from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies.... So what's your excuse, PhDufus? dxAce Michigan USA And, as always, don't let your children attend Louisville Technical Institute. They've hired at least one dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, and who knows, there may be more dufi there. |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
Hitler HO Obama's girlfriend, Vera Baker.When Michelle Party Party Party
Obama found out Hitler HO Obama (T-Q-F-U) and Vera Baker were screwing (Literally) around, Michelle Party Party Party Obama had Vera Baker sent completely out of America, to Martinique. FUBO cuhulin |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
|
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
dave wrote: wrote: Hitler HO Obama's girlfriend, Vera Baker.When Michelle Party Party Party Obama found out Hitler HO Obama (T-Q-F-U) and Vera Baker were screwing (Literally) around, Michelle Party Party Party Obama had Vera Baker sent completely out of America, to Martinique. FUBO cuhulin You are not what we call a "critical thinker". You are what we call a "drug addled tard boy". dxAce Michigan USA |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
A few minutes ago, the History channel said The Irish in America tv
program will be on the History channel in a few days. I am not a critical thinker,,, you think? cuhulin |
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
|
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
|
A URL Proving that RHF is a Historical Revisionist
In article
, Mike wrote: On Mar 6, 5:00?pm, "~ RHF" wrote: Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF While Clinton signed it into law, NAFTA was Reagan's dream. Please note that the following URL is from the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies.... Please note that NAFTA today is not what Reagan wanted. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - US Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1% Worst Since 1983
On Mar 6, 7:53*pm, John Barnard wrote:
Telamon wrote: In article , *dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA.. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, *he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html - - The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. - Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street - in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job - of picking up the pieces. - - JB (OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© US Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1% Worst Since 1983 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...58U&refer=news * US Job Losses topped 600,000 for a Third Straight Month, the first time that's happened in government record-keeping dating to 1939. - - - It's ObamaNomics© http://www.newsday.com/services/news...,5660062.story * ObamaNomics© 13.4% Unemployment Far Worse for Blacks - - - It's ObamaNomics© http://www.suntimes.com/business/146...ploy07.article * U.S. Unemployment Reaches 26-year High - - - It's ObamaNomics© http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/s...2/daily79.html |
(OT) : MWB - More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. - History WillShow President Bill Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTATreaty Becoming LAW [.]
On Mar 7, 5:26*am, Mike wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:00 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF - While Clinton signed it into law, - NAFTA was Reagan's dream. - Please note that the following URL is from - the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation: - - http://www.heritage.org/Research/tra...edom/EM371.cfm - - Proof of RHF's revisionist tendencies.... MWB ?while? - More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. The simple Historical Fact Is : President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It { Did He ? - NO ! } -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. { Instead He Got Behind It and Made It Law } Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF |
(OT) : ObamaNomics© Higher Cigarette Taxes = More Inter-State Boot-Legged Cigarettes
On Mar 7, 11:46*am, dxAce wrote:
wrote: A few minutes ago, the History channel said The Irish in America tv program will be on the History channel in a few days. I am not a critical thinker,,, you think? A tip for you, Larry: Buy rolling tobacco now. Taxes on it are going up astronomically on April 1. dxAce Michigan USA Some where I read a few years back that for certain enterprising New Yorkers a Van Load of Cartons of Cigarettes from low tax Cigarette States can make the Driver and the Co-Driver $3K~$5K or more a Haul for Off-the-Book Sales in NYC. A Dollar a Pack Cigarette "ObamaTax" comes to $20 per Carton : * Inter-State Boot-Leggers Revenue $5 Per Carton * Under-the-Counter Shop Owner Revenue $5 Per Carton * Cigarette Buyer Tax SAVINGS $10 Per Carton = = = ObamaNomics© Tax Avoidance YEAH - Keep Raising those Cigarette Taxes and creating more Jobs in the Illegal Interstate Cigarette Sales {Trafficking} Business. idtars ~ RHF |
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - Bad for the Stock Market [Down] and Bad for Employment [Up]
On Mar 7, 4:02*pm, John Barnard wrote:
~ RHF wrote: On Mar 6, 7:53 pm, John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , *dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, *he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html - - The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. - Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street - in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job - of picking up the pieces. - - JB - - (OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - - US Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1% Worst Since 1983 - - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...WlnEIj58U&refe... - - * US Job Losses topped 600,000 for a Third Straight Month, - - the first time that's happened in government record-keeping - - dating to 1939. - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.newsday.com/services/news...saturday/news/.... - - * ObamaNomics© 13.4% Unemployment Far Worse for Blacks - - - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.suntimes.com/business/146...ploy07.article - - * U.S. Unemployment Reaches 26-year High - - - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/s...2/daily79.html - - . - - FWIW the 'Blame Bush' Game has become - - the 'Blame Obama' Game -cause- Bush Ain't - - the President Anymore and Obama "IS" - - *. - - It's Happening On Obama's Presidential Watch So . . . - - It's His Problem [.] - - It's His Responsibility [.] - - It's His Fame or Blame [.] - - *. - You're a useless moron - please do something useful and become worm food. - - JB "JB" - 'useless moron' & 'worm food' |
(OT) : WHAT IF ? - It Is Determined That Barack 'Hussein' ObamaWere 'In-Fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} To Be The US President ?
~ RHF wrote:
Dave -oops- ? WHAT IF ? - It is determined that Barack 'Hussein' Obama were 'in-fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} to be the US President ? - - - As Prescribed by the US Constitution. Too late now. He has been sworn. |
(OT) : WHAT IF ? - It Is Determined That Barack 'Hussein' ObamaWere 'In-Fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} To Be The US President ?
On Mar 8, 6:06*am, dave wrote:
- - ~ RHF wrote: - - Dave -oops- ? WHAT IF ? - It is determined that - - Barack 'Hussein' Obama were 'in-fact' NOT - - Eligible {Qualified} to be the US President ? - - - - - As Prescribed by the US Constitution. - Too late now. *He has been sworn. Dave -reality-check- An Oath of Office Is To . . . Up-Hold "The Law" -and- Not To Abrogate The Law [.] Remember that the US Constitution -is-in-fact- "The Law of the Land" -and- Applies To All. -or- Dave Are You Now Saying US Presidents Are Above "The Law" -or- Just Barack Obama 'IS' Above "The Law" ? classic liberal thinking - it boggles the mind ~ RHF |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
Telamon wrote:
In article , John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces. The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms. It didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the obomination's policies are any better. The boys on Wall Street are the ones to be held the most accountable. Their free ride with Georgie and his clan are over and now they have to own up. Small wonder they are sh*tting bricks. The boys on wall street are not responsible for the wealth destroying actions of the obomination. I know I'm one of the "boys" as you call them. The market has been down since the obomination won the election due to his promises to destroy capitalism as we know it. The obomination speeches since he assumed office have done nothing but inspire fear in the markets. Those are the facts like them or not. Those are not the facts if you take a look at the DJIA over the last year. The greatest drops occurred with GWB in power. And those are the facts like them or not. http://www.djaverages.com/ JB |
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - Bad for the Stock Market [Down] and Bad for Employment [Up]
~ RHF wrote:
On Mar 7, 4:02 pm, John Barnard wrote: ~ RHF wrote: On Mar 6, 7:53 pm, John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html - - The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. - Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street - in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job - of picking up the pieces. - - JB - - (OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - - US Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1% Worst Since 1983 - - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...WlnEIj58U&refe... - - * US Job Losses topped 600,000 for a Third Straight Month, - - the first time that's happened in government record-keeping - - dating to 1939. - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.newsday.com/services/news...saturday/news/... - - * ObamaNomics© 13.4% Unemployment Far Worse for Blacks - - - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.suntimes.com/business/146...ploy07.article - - * U.S. Unemployment Reaches 26-year High - - - - - It's ObamaNomics© - - http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/s...2/daily79.html - - . - - FWIW the 'Blame Bush' Game has become - - the 'Blame Obama' Game -cause- Bush Ain't - - the President Anymore and Obama "IS" - - . - - It's Happening On Obama's Presidential Watch So . . . - - It's His Problem [.] - - It's His Responsibility [.] - - It's His Fame or Blame [.] - - . - You're a useless moron - please do something useful and become worm food. - - JB "JB" - 'useless moron' & 'worm food' . - - - = = = RHF's Canned Reply 'Rant' = = = - - - [: To Liberal Name Calling :] ROTFL - You Know When You Are Winning An Argument : When a Super-Smart 'Enlightened" Liberal Starts Name Calling*. * They Lose Their Ability To Think And Get Emotional - rotfl ~ RHF http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...8979fbe8546cfa . The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© Are Killing {Down 30%} the US Markets http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...ccb045a3477ffb . (OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© : US Unemployment Rate Jumps to 8.1% Worst Since 1983 http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...6e2934afe7d70b . More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. History Will Show President Bill Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [.] http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...7368c1c9582977 . President Obama Turn-Off That Tela-Promter ! © http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...0263779a9766ed . Impeach Obama Now - He's Bad For America and The World Economy http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...5e0eb69c261e7d . Reverse ObamaNomics© Every Time Obama Mentions Rush Limbaugh's Name - Limbaugh's Pay Goes Up ! http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...a0f4a32ced4e28 . Democrats & Liberals Talking About Rush Limbaugh's Weight Just Proves That Barack 'Hussein' Obama Is A Light Weight President http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...2734159d567079 . At the Weigh-In : Feel-the-Rush Lim-Bah -versus- Bar-Rack-the-Oba-MAaaa http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...950b0e3f533efd . Dave -proclaims- - That Is The Height Of Irresponsibility. {ROTFL} http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...17ef8d79ff6992 . Dave -proclaims- Anyone Who Spreads Rumors That Question The President's Legitimacy Is Undermining National Security - In the Age of Obama-R-Us© http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...73c6be52c60f39 . . Sorry but I trend along conservative lines. But I still have no problem calling you an useless moron who warps words to fit his own pathetic interpretations. JB |
(OT) : WHAT IF ? - It Is Determined That Barack 'Hussein' Obama Were 'In-Fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} To Be The US President ?
In article ,
dave wrote: ~ RHF wrote: Dave -oops- ? WHAT IF ? - It is determined that Barack 'Hussein' Obama were 'in-fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} to be the US President ? - - - As Prescribed by the US Constitution. Too late now. He has been sworn. Yeah, I've sworn at him many times myself. I'm sure many people have done the same. Someone needs to hack the obama-prompter. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
RHF: Historical Revisionist
In article ,
John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37�pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24�am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23�pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF �. RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces. The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms. It didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the obomination's policies are any better. The boys on Wall Street are the ones to be held the most accountable. Their free ride with Georgie and his clan are over and now they have to own up. Small wonder they are sh*tting bricks. The boys on wall street are not responsible for the wealth destroying actions of the obomination. I know I'm one of the "boys" as you call them. The market has been down since the obomination won the election due to his promises to destroy capitalism as we know it. The obomination speeches since he assumed office have done nothing but inspire fear in the markets. Those are the facts like them or not. Those are not the facts if you take a look at the DJIA over the last year. The greatest drops occurred with GWB in power. And those are the facts like them or not. http://www.djaverages.com/ I don't know what charts you are looking at. Are you saying you exist in an alternate universe? I got out of the market a over a year ago now once I saw the Dem's were likely to take over the white house with all the negative implications involved in that. My crystal ball didn't show me that the Dem's would also have control of both houses. Over the course of the election year the Dem's picked the most liberal Senator to run for office. This looked pretty bad for the economy and it sure turned out that way. This is the perfect political storm against the stock market. You may have voted for it but we are both going to pay for it. I think you should pay my share for the damage the abomination has done and has yet to do. How ironic that even Putin thinks the obominator is stupid for following socialist policies. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - Bad for the Stock Market [Down] and Bad for Employment [Down]
On Mar 8, 2:44*pm, John Barnard wrote:
Telamon wrote: In article , *John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , *John Barnard wrote: Telamon wrote: In article , *dxAce wrote: Michael W. Bryant, the totally discredited dufus who once claimed to have a PhD, wrote: On Mar 6, 3:37 pm, "~ RHF" wrote: On Mar 6, 5:24 am, Mike wrote: On Mar 4, 8:23 pm, Telamon wrote: Political and cultural ties sure but I don't know any conservatives that think the economic treaties between the USA and China are a good thing. I remember Ronald Reagan suggesting that trade pacts with China would eventually make sense. You should also remember that it was Reagan who got the ball rolling on NAFTA and it was King George, the First, that pretty much was responsible for finishing the negotiations on NAFTA. - Clinton just signed it shortly after being elected. MWB 'just' More Liberal Re-Writing of History Again. President Bill Clinton Signed the NAFTA Treaty INTO LAW [.] -ps- He could have Vetoed It -but- He 'Choose' to Sign the NAFTA Treaty Into Law. Yes History Will Show Clinton Was At The Very End Responsible for the NAFTA Treaty Becoming LAW [. ] mwb - the facts are the facts ~ RHF . RHF, As usual, you're just choosing to be difficult. Though Clinton signed NAFTA (and, yes, *he took grief from the labor unions for doing so), but it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that were responsible for the negotiations during the 1980's. The responsibility for NAFTA was clearly shared by both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan was famous for his prediction that countries that trade with each other have seldom fought wars. Yes, even the great Conservative supported Free Trade Pacts. The Republican Party has always been bigger supporters of such pacts. What, RHF, no URLs to support your insanity this time? That clearly says something.. What about your insanity, PhDufus? After all, any 'tard boy who'd lie about having a PhD certainly must have a screw or two loose. You want insanity, this is insanity. Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN "It's hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president's policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis. The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents -- John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance -- President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter's higher taxes and Mr. Clinton's draconian defense drawdown." Go read the rest of it he http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629969453946717.html The obomination is looking more like Carter II everyday. Failed capitalism and its supporters did Wall Street in NOT Barack Obama. He has the unfortunate job of picking up the pieces. The stock market disagrees with you in strongest possible terms. It didn't like Jimmy's policies and it doesn't think the obomination's policies are any better. The boys on Wall Street are the ones to be held the most accountable. Their free ride with Georgie and his clan are over and now they have to own up. Small wonder they are sh*tting bricks. The boys on wall street are not responsible for the wealth destroying actions of the obomination. I know I'm one of the "boys" as you call them. The market has been down since the obomination won the election due to his promises to destroy capitalism as we know it. The obomination speeches since he assumed office have done nothing but inspire fear in the markets. Those are the facts like them or not. Those are not the facts if you take a look at the DJIA over the last year. The greatest drops occurred with GWB in power. And those are the facts like them or not. http://www.djaverages.com/ JB That was a durect result of FEAR of the ObamaNation© and the onslaught of ObamaNomics© leading to the ObamaNization© of the US Ecomomy has caused the US Stock Market to T-A-N-K ! 1Obama 2 Obamas 3 Obamas Four Years of Obama Can We Take Anymore ? |
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© -Bad for the Stock Mark...
|
(OT) : The Obama Regime's ObamaNomics© - Creating ObamaVilles© (Tent Cities) for the Urban Poor and Homeless
On Mar 8, 10:37*pm, wrote:
- Obamavilles. - www.rense.com/general85/obamville.htm - cuhulin Cuhulin - ObamaVilles© Is Right Kevin Johnson, the African-American Mayor of http://www.cityofsacramento.org/ Sacramento, CA is considering putting-up an ObamaVille© (Tent City) for the City's Poor and Homeless. http://www.knx1070.com/Tent-City--Sa...to--CA/3975040 ObamaVilles© can also mean the Endless Number of Empty Foreclosed Homes in a House track or Neighborhood. This are the Vacant Relics of what was America's Dying Middle Class now ever increasing as a results of ObamaNomics© Either way an ObamaVille© Ain't Good News -cause- they are a hard physical testament to the reality that Americans are Broke and Homeless due to the current Economic Conditions brough on by the failed policies of ObamaNomics© and the ObamaNization© of America's Wealth and Productive Capacity. The Obama-Regime© has made the Financial Failure of the US Government {Devaluation of the Dollar} and the Collapse of the US Economy {Hyper Inflation} and all too real future reality for the vast majority of working Americans. ~ RHF |
(OT) : WHAT IF ? - It Is Determined That Barack 'Hussein' Obama Were 'In-Fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} To Be The US President ?
In article telamon_spamshield-6C7774.17402108032009
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net, lid says... In article , dave wrote: ~ RHF wrote: Dave -oops- ? WHAT IF ? - It is determined that Barack 'Hussein' Obama were 'in-fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} to be the US President ? - - - As Prescribed by the US Constitution. Too late now. He has been sworn. Yeah, I've sworn at him many times myself. I'm sure many people have done the same. Someone needs to hack the obama-prompter. Wow, you guys are really desperate, aren't you Telemundo? As usual, but lamer. -- BDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster |
(OT) : WHAT IF ? - It Is Determined That Barack 'Hussein' Obama Were 'In-Fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} To Be The US President ?
In article ,
BDK wrote: In article telamon_spamshield-6C7774.17402108032009 @newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net, lid says... In article , dave wrote: ~ RHF wrote: Dave -oops- ? WHAT IF ? - It is determined that Barack 'Hussein' Obama were 'in-fact' NOT Eligible {Qualified} to be the US President ? - - - As Prescribed by the US Constitution. Too late now. He has been sworn. Yeah, I've sworn at him many times myself. I'm sure many people have done the same. Someone needs to hack the obama-prompter. Wow, you guys are really desperate, aren't you Telemundo? It's a joke. As usual, but lamer. You didn't get it because you are a joke. -- Telamon Ventura, California |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:11 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com